
    STATE, Respondent, v. ESTES, Appellant.
    (207 N. W. 160.)
    (File No. 6029.
    Opinon filed February 8, 1926.)
    1. Criminal Law — Intoxicating Liquors — Evidence Held to Sustain Conviction of Transportation.
    Evidence consisting of admission of accused held sufficient to sustain conviction of transportation.
    
      2. Crimnal Law — Trial—Appeal and Error — Admissibility of Evidence Not Considered, in Absence of Objection or Motion to Strike Out.
    Admissibility of evidence of admission of defendant will not be considered on appeal, where 110 objection or motion to strike out was made.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Tripp County; Hon. John G. Bartin®, Judge.
    Harold Estes was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      P. A. Hosford', of Winner, for Appellant.
    
      Buell F. Jones, Attorney General, and Bernard A. Broiun, Brief Attorney, of Pierre, for the State.
   ■GATES, P. J.

Armed with a search warrant, peace officers went to the home of defendant and under a trapdoor found a case of beer and a boiler partly filled with beer bottles on ice, which upon analysis contained 9 per cent, alcohol. The defendant was charged and convicted of the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor. He appeals from the judgment and an order denying new trial.

Without objection, one of the officers testified (referring to defendant) :

“He said he did not make any beer; that he bought it and brought it home. He told me on a trip to Kennebec that he never made beer; that he 'bought this and took it home.”

Note. — Reported in 207 N. W. 160. See, H-eadnote (1), American Key-Numbered Digest, Criminal law, Key-No. 409, 33 C. J. Sec. 503; (2) Criminal law, Key-No. 1036 (1), 1044, 17 C. J. Sec. 3331.

No other evidence was offered tending to show transportation. No motion was made by defendant to strike out the above' testimony. Appellant’s argument is chiefly addressed -to the proposition that evidence of admissions made by defendant was not admissible until the corpus delicti had been proven. If objection had been made to' the introduction of the above evidence, or if there had been a motion to strike it out, we would feel bound to consider the point urged. As it is, we do not. Transportation by defendant being thus shown, there is naught else in the record which merits consideration.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.  