
    12686.
    Teal v. The State.
    Decided November 16, 1921.
    Indictment for manufacture of intoxicating liquor; from Paulding superior court — -Judge Irwin. June 4, 1921.
    Comer Teal, the defendant, it was testified, was “ a boy living with his father, . . a very old man, . . feeble, hardly able to get out of the house, . . not able to work ” or to operate a still; and officers looking for a still found in and near a pasture used by the father different evidences of the making of liquor; they found in the pasture, about 150 or 200 yards from the house, a still and cap and worm hidden under some brush pine tops where wood had been cut, and found just outside the pasture and between a quarter and a half mile from the house about 500 or 600 gallons of beer, and a furnace, a hake-stand, etc.; and there were "fresh tracks from the distillery directly to his house.” " Several little beaten paths seemed to start off from the beer,” but were not traced away from there; one went straight to Teal’s house. One of the officers' testified: " Saw the defendant the day I was down there; he was about half way between the house and where we found the still, coming down the path. He was coming down from the house; didn’t see him about the still; he had an ax on his shoulder; . , never at any time saw Comer with any whisky or beer or anything of the kind, or in possession of any still apparatus; . told him what we had found; he said he didn’t know a thing about it; . . met Comer going toward the still.” The witness did not know who else lived with the defendant’s father. Another officer testified that "there was a young man there, coming down across the field with an ax on his shoulder,” as they "went up there,” but he did not know whether it was Comer Teal or not. Other people lived not far away from there. The defendant, in his statement at the trial, said that he was in Dallas when "they got that still,” and did not know anything about it; that he knew nothing as to the beer being there.
   Luke, J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of manufacturing liquor. The evidence relied upon by the State was wholly circumstantial and was not sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendant’s guilt. It was therefore error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

W. E. Spinks, for plaintiff in error.

J. R. Hutcheson, solicitor-general, contra.  