
    17712.
    Ware v. The State.
    Intoxicating Liquors, 33 C. J. p. 761, n. 53; p. 762, n. 55.
   Luke, J.

On circumstantial evidence the accused was convicted of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquors. The evidence did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused, and the court, therefore, erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Decided January 11, 1927.

Possessing liquor; from city court of. Washington — Judge Sutton. September 25, 1926.

Ware lived “on the edge of Washington, on Dr. Will Hill’s place.” Officers who searched his house found no whisky, but found two or three spoonfuls of whisky in a fruit jar “at the side of the yard, in a post-hole,” and found five or six'pints of whisky, halfway covered with grass, across the road, in a field, about seventy-five yards from his house, and tracks leading from his house to where the whisky was found. There are other houses and a store not far from his house and on the other side of the road from it, and houses back in the field. “There was evidence of considerable travel going to his house.” In his statement at the trial he said that he did not know anything about the whisky.

Hugh E. Combs, for plaintiff in error.

Charles H. Calhoun, solicitor, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.  