
    Washington v. City of Jackson.
    [72 South. 893.]
    Intoxicating IuqtjoRS. Possession with intent to sell. Evidence. Sufficiency.
    
    Before a conviction can be bad under section 1797, Code 1906, as amended by chapter 114 of Laws 1908, providing that, “it shall be unlawful for any person to have in his possession any intoxicating liquors with the intention or for the purpose of selling the same, or giving it away in violation of law,” there must be evidence of a sale or intent to sell such liquors and the fact that defendant has a large quantity of liquor in his possession alone is not sufficient to convict.
    Appeal from the circuit court of Hinds county.
    Hon. W. H. Potter, Judge.
    Virginia Washington was convicted in the municipal court of unlawfully having in her possession intoxicating liquors with the intention of selling them, and from the judgment on appeal to the circuit court again convicting her, she appeals.
    Appellant was convicted in the municipal court of the city of Jackson on an affidavit which charged that she — “did then and there willfully and unlawfully have in her possession vinous, spirituous, malt, alcoholic, and intoxicating liquors, with the intention and with the purpose of selling same.”
    
      Section 1797 of the Code of 1906, as amended by chapter 114 of the Laws of 1908, provides that:
    “It shall he unlawful for any person in this state to have in his. possession any intoxicating liquors with the intention or for the purpose of selling the same or giving it away in violation of law.”
    By the ordinance the city of Jackson has made this law an offense against the city. The testimony showed that she had in her possession at the time the affidavit was made twenty-one pints of whiskey and ten quarts of beer and two corkscrews, and a number of empty whisky bottles and beer bottles were found on the premises. She claimed that part of the liquor belonged to other parties, and it is not shown that she ever sold any liquor at any time. She appealed to the circuit court, and was again convicted, and carried her case to the supreme court on appeal from this last conviction.
    
      L. M. Burch, for appellant.
    
      L. G. Hallam, for appellee.
   Holden, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The proof in this case brings it within the rule announced in Stansbury v. State, 98 Miss. 406, 53 So. 783, and McComb City v. Hill, 100 Miss. 193, 56 So. 346, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 534. Therefore the judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the appellant discharged.

Reversed.  