
    10879.
    Mullins v. The State.
    Decided November 4, 1919.
    Indictment for possession of intoxicating liquors; from Harris superior court—Judge Howard. July 36, 1919.
    A policeman testified, that he searched the defendant’s house for whisky on June 10, 1918, and in a bedroom found on a bed two gallon jugs, each about half full of whisky; that there was nobody at the house, but the defendant soon came to the house and was placed under arrest and said that a negro named Will Maddox left the whisky there, that he came there with a package in a sack and asked her to let him leave it, and he carried it into the room, and she did not know what was in the sack “until after they were going to town, when Will told her it was whisky;” that she very promptly told whom it belonged to, and, from the’information she gave, the witness went to the house of Will Maddox and, on. search, found there whisky of the kind found in the defendant’s house. Another officer testified, that on or about November 1, 1917, on seeing a negro standing near the defendant’s house, with a bottle in his hand and two or three other negroes, he searched the bouse for whisky; that none was found in the house, but he found under a large box near the back steps a gallon jug of whisky, partly filled; that the defendant was in the house ironing, with her daughter, who was about grown; that she made no objection to the search, and told him to go ahead, that she had no whisky there. This witness further stated that he thought there were some negroes boarding at the defendant’s house; that she was an industrious negro woman, who washed ánd ironed and cultivated a little patch; and tbit'there was no fence around the house; “it was just an open space around there.” No additional witness testified. In her statement at the trial the defendant asserted her innocence and repeated in substance the statements which the officers testified she had made to them.
   Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of having, possessing, and controlling intoxicating liquors. The evidence as to her connection with the whisky was entirely circumstantial, and failed* to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of her guilt, and was consistent with the theory of her innocence. The court therefore erred in overruling her motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

George G. Palmer, for plaintiff in error.

O. P. McLaughlin, solicitor-general, contra.  