
    Ross v. State.
    (Division B.
    June 5, 1939.)
    [189 So. 526.
    No. 33611.]
    Hilton, Berry & Kendall, of Jackson, for appellant.
    
      W. D. Conn, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.
   McGehee, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Tbe appellant, Barney Ross, and bis son, Homer Ross, were jointly indicted for tbe unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. Homer Ross entered a plea of guilty, and then claimed tbat tbe whiskey which was found on tbe premises of bis father, Barney Ross, pursuant to tbe execution of a lawful search warrant, bad been carried there by bim on tbe night before tbe search. He claimed tbat he found all of tbe whiskey at about 11 o’clock P. M. at a distance of approximately fifteen feet from highway No. 49’ while walking along tbe highway near tbe Town of D’Lo.

It is contended by tbe appellant tbat tbe mere fact tbat tbe whiskey was found on his premises on tbe next morning was insufficient to establish tbe charge against bim. Tbe proof further discloses, however, tbat when tbe officers arrested both tbe appellant and Homer Ross and asked tbe appellant whether “tbat was Fred Grant-ham’s liquor,” be said, “No, it is my liquor, and if I ever get out of this I never intend to sell any more liquor.” This statement made by tbe appellant in response to tbe question of the sheriff, or to a question asked by the deputy, coupled with the circumstance that the whiskey was found on the premises of the appellant constituted a sufficient and abundant reason for submitting the case to the jury. Neither was the jury hound to accept as true the claim of the son that he alone was guilty of the crime; and especially in view of his story as to how he came into possession of the whiskey in question.

Affirmed.  