
    17867.
    Jerks v. The State.
    Criminal Law, 16 C. J. p. 764, n. 54.
    Intoxicating Liquors, 33 O. J. p. 757, n. 74; p. 761, n. 53; p. 762, n. 54, 55, 57.
   Luke, J.

On circumstantial evidence the defendant was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor. Under the facts of the case it could be reasonably concluded that the small quantity of whisky found, in the absence of tlie accused, in an outliouse on his premises, belonged to some one other than himself; and, since the evidence does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused, the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. See Humphrey v. State, 25 Ga. App. 244 (102 S. E. 911); Turner v. State, 25 Ga. App. 234 (102 S. E. 847).

Decided April 12, 1927.

Possessing intoxicating liquor; from Pulaski superior court— Judge Graham. December 14, 1926.

Officers searching for whisky and whisky stills, it was testified, found in a swamp, about a mile from the residence of Frank Jelks (the defendant), several parts of a recently used still, and then went to his residence and to an outhouse on the premises; the house was locked and the only person there was a woman who said she was the wife of Frank Jelks, and from her they got the key of the house, and there found several jugs, in one of which was a pint of whisky, and found a funnel and three barrels; one of the barrels had recently (from its fresh appearance) contained whisky mash. “This house had been used years ago as a commissary by one Jim Johnson.”

D. R. Pearce, for plaintiff in error.

M. H. Boyer, solicitor-general, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.  