
    12612.
    Mickens v. The State.
    Decided November 16, 1921.
    Indictment for making liquor; from Wilkes superior court — Judge Shurley. May 19, 1921.
    It was testified that on a creek between Watson Sutton’s place and Jim Sutton’s place a still, making liquor, was found, and George Mickens, the defendant, who was a boy living with Jim Sutton, was seen as he went to the still and “ whistled a man out,” and “went in,” after which he was not again seen there. A witness testified: “I waited there about 20 or 30 minutes, to see him come out. I heard them hitting the tin and saw the smoke come out . . after this boy went in there. He had nothing with him when he went in. . . A white man was running the still. His name was Mr. Wilkes. I guess he was the one running it. He was the only white man there. I just saw this boy go in there. I never saw him do anything around the still. I don’t know whether he went out on the other side or not. . . On the side he went in there was a path going there. • There was another path on the other side. . . That path on the other side led direct to Mr. Sutton’s house. . .. This negro had to wait there something like two or three minutes after this peculiar whistle. He stood right steady until the fellow came out and invited him in.”
    
      Colley & Colley, for plaintiff in error.
    
      M. L. Felts, solicitor-general, contra.
   Broyles, C. J.

The evidence relied upon for the conviction of the accused was wholly circumstantial and was not sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. It follows that his conviction was contrary to. law and the evidence and that the judge erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Lulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.  