
    9258.
    Ward et al. v. The State.
    Decided January 22, 1918.
    Indictment for felony; from Walton superior court — Judge Cobb. September 22, 1917.
    Ward, Carter, and Crisp were convicted .under an indictment charging them and another person with having distilled and made alcoholic and spirituous liquors. Ward and Carter made, a motion for a new trial, which was refused, and they excepted. From the evidence it appeared, that a constable and a town marshal discovered the defendants at a distillery, where corn whisky was being made, on a branch in the woods on the land of J. E. Tuck, about nine o’clock in the morning. Ward and Carter were not doing anything. They were standing, talking and listening to Crisp talk, and Crisp punched the fire with wood under the furnace of the distillery. The officers holloaed at them and they ran. A path led from there through the woods to Carter’s house, about 300 yards away. He worked land about.200 yards from the distillery. Ward lived about a half mile away. Several families lived near there. Carter, in his. statement at the trial, said that he went down to the branch to get water, and heard cutting, and heard men talking, and found the other defendants there, and was there about five minutes when the officers appeared and called “Halt!” and he was scared and ran; that he did not know what the distillery was, and had never seen anything like it before. Ward stated that he went there suspecting that a distillery was there, and got a drink, and the officers came and called “Halt!” and said “I will kill you,” and he ran.
    
      B. L. & H. C. Cox, for plaintiff in error, cited:
    
      Griffin v. State, 2 Ga. App. 534; Lawrence v. State, 68 Ga. 289 (2); Lowery v. State, 72 Ga. 649; Thornton v. State, 119 Ga. 437.
    . W. 0. Bean, solicitor-general, contra.
   Bboyles, P. J.

1. The evidence connecting the defendants with the offense charged being entirely circumstantial in its nature, and not excluding every reasonable hypothesis save that of their guilt, their conviction was unauthorized, and the court erred in overruling the motion ■ for a new trial.

2.- The foregoing ruling being controlling in the case, it is unnecessary to consider the amendment to the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Bloodivorth and Harwell, JJ., concur.  