
    14664.
    Hill v. The State.
    Decided July 10, 1923.
   Broyles, O. J.

The testimony of the accomplice was sufficiently corroborated by the other facts and circumstance’s of the case; the verdict was amply authorized by the evidence, and none of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial requires a reversal of the judgment below.

Judgment affirmed.

Luhe and Bloodioorth, JJ., concur.

Indictment for making liquor; from Whitfield superior court — Judge Tarver. May 9, 1923.

M. B. Eubanks, for plaintiff in error.

J. M. Lang, solicitor-general, contra.  