
    14066.
    Vaughn v. The State.
    Decided January 11, 1923.
    Indictment for possession of liquor; from McIntosh, superior court — Judge Sheppard. October 21, 1922.
    Vaughn was convicted of having intoxicating liquor in his possession, custody, and control. On the trial H. B. Johnson testified: "I went out with Mr. Latham to defendant’s place, . . the time stated in the indictment. We had several search warrants and one for defendant’s house. When we got there defendant was at home, and we told him what we had come to do. He made no objection, said he did not have any liquor, that he never used any and we would not find any there. He claimed that he lived in the two front rooms, that the rear rooms belonged to others, his wife’s mother and father. Defendant and his wife stayed in the front while I searched the house. . . I searched both of the front rooms, but did not find anything wrong with either of them. I searched the rear rooms. One was locked, but it only had some furniture and bedding and such things; the other was not locked, only the door closed. I went in the room and searched it and found a flask half full of whisky. . . It was in the washstand. The room was a bedroom, but had not been used lately,— did not'have the appearance of being used. I carried the flask to Mr. Latham. The defendant denied having any knowledge of it, said it was not his and that he did not put it there, that it must belong to the party who used to use the room. He said his father-in-law had died a month or so before, and that was his room. He said his father-in-law drank. I then searched the kitchen and yard. I found a tub in the yard with mulberries and water or kind of mash in it; it was sour and smelt bad. I found those jugs in the closet in the kitchen. I don’t know what it is,—• looks like some kind of wine or cordial. I don’t know if it is intoxicating, would not want to taste it, don’t like the looks. He said it was mulberry wine, that his wife had talked about making some mulberry wine, as they had so many mulberries on the place, but that lie had not paid any attention and did not know she had made any, or that there was any on the place.” C. W. Latham testified substantially to the same effect. The liquor and the jugs were introduced in evidence. The defendant in his statement at the trial said that until the officers came he did not know of any whisky or wine at the place where he lived.
   Broyles, C. J.

The evidence in this case was wholly circumstantial and did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendant’s guilt. The court, therefore, erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Tyson & Tyson, for plaintiff in error.

J. Saxton Daniel, contra.  