
    TOM RICHARDS et al. v. STATE.
    No. A-3449.
    Opinion Filed April 10, 1920.
    (188 Pac. 692.)
    Appeal from County Oourt. Stex>hens County; J. W. Marshall, Judge.
    Tom Richards and Rose Rogers were convicted of .u violation of the prohibitory liquor law. and they appeal.
    Affirmed.
    AVomaek & Brown, for plaintiffs in error.
    W. O. Hall, Asst Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

On information charging that they unlawfully conveyed 15 cases of intoxicating liquor from a place in Stephens county, unknown to a place in the public road about a mile southeast of the city of Duncan, the plaintiffs in error, Tom Richards and Rose Sogers, were tried and found guilty, and in accordance with the verdict they were each sentenced to lie confined 180 days in the county jail and to pay a fine, of $500. From the judgment rendered on the verdict they appealed by filing in this court on August 26, 1918, a petition in error with case-made. No brief has been filed and no appearance made for oral argument. The Attorney General has moved tef affirm the judgment, for failure to prosecute the appeal. The evidence tends to show that at the time charged Richards was working in a gambling house, and Rose Rogers was running a sporting house at a .place called “Rag Town,” ail'd there Richards hired the car to haul this whisky, and Rose Rogers paid for the use of .it. They wore apprehended by the officers in the car, and therein were found six sacks of whisky ancl nine sacks of beer. The instructions of the court fully cover the law. After an examination of the record our conclusion is that the appeal in this case is 'wholly destitute of merit. The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed. Mandate forthwith.  