
    11447.
    Harris v. The State.
    Decided June 15, 1920.
    Indictment for intoxication in public place; from Murray superior court-—-Judge Tarver. February 28, 1920.
    The court charged the jury that if they should find that the defendant appeared in an intoxicated condition at the place named in the indictment, and that the intoxication was caused in the manner prescribed by the statute (that is, by the use of intoxicating wines, beers, liquors, or opiates), and was made manifest in any manner provided by statute (that is, by boisterousness, by indecent condition or acting, or by vulgar, profane, or unbecoming language, or by loud and violent discourse), they should find the defendant guilty. This instruction is complained of in the first special ground of the motion for a new trial, for the reason that '' it is not the law of the case,” and “ it tells the jury, in defining the statute, that 'the use of intoxicating wines/ etc., is sufficient when the law is, the 'excessive use of intoxicating wines/ etc.”
    In the other special ground of the motion for a new trial it is alleged that the province of the jury was invaded and an opinion intimated that the defendant was drunk and intoxicating, by the following instruction of the court: ''It is not necessary that the drunkenness or intoxication should be made manifest in all of the ways which the statute provided, but, if it was made manifest in one of the ways, that would be sufficient.”
   Bloodwortii, J.

The excerpts from the charge of the court complained of in the special grounds of the motion for new trial contain .no reversible error; there is ample evidence to support the verdict, and the judgment is

Affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

H. H. Anderson, for plaintiff in error.

Joseph M. Lang, solicitor-general, contra.  