
    16777.
    Rushing v. The State.
    Decided November 11, 1925.
    Making intoxicating liquor; from Screven superior court—Judge Strange. August 14, 1925.
    
      H. A. Boylcim,, for plaintiff in error.
    
      John C. Hollingsworth, solicitor-general, contra.
   Luke, J.

The evidence in this case amply authorized the conviction. The conviction not being wholly dependent upon circumstantial evidence, and there being no request to charge thereon, the assignment of error upon the ground that the judge did not charge the law of circumstantial evidence is without merit. Eor no reason pointed out in the record did the court err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloockoorth, J., concur.  