
    (No. 4964.
    May 18, 1927.)
    STATE, Respondent, v. ALBERT SMITH, Appellant.
    [256 Pac. 1118.]
    APPEAL from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, for Bingham County. Hon. Balph W. Adair, Judge.
    Defendant appeals from judgment of conviction of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    Donald B. Good and Thomas & Andersen, for Appellant.
    The appellate court cannot and will not shift the responsibility to the jury, but will examine the evidence to ascertain whether or not the verdict is supported by the evidence. (State v. Nesbit, 4 Ida. 548, 43 Pae. 66; State v. Jones, 25 Ida. 587, 138 Pac. 1116; State v. Trego, 25 Ida. 625, 138 Pac. 1124.)
    Opinion evidence as to intoxicating nature or kind without chemical analysis of the suspected liquor is insufficient as a basis for a conviction (Berry v. United States, 275 Fed. 680; Alexander v. State (Okl.), 248 Pac. 873.)
    Frank L. Stephan, Attorney General, and John W. Cramer, Assistant Attorney General, for Bespondent.
    Where there is a conflict in the evidence but sufficient competent evidence to support the verdict and judgment based thereon, the same will not be disturbed on appeal. (State v. Brassfield, 40 Ida. 203", 232 Pac. 1; State v. Shepard, 39 Ida. 666, 229 Pac. 87; State v. White, 33 Ida. 697, 197 Pac. 824.)
    The character of liquor may be shown by its smell or taste. (People v. Savage, 225 Mich. 84, 195 N. W. 669; People v. Mueller, 168 Cal. 526, 143 Pac. 750.)
    Publisher’s Note.
    See Criminal Law, 17 C. J., see. 3593, p. 255, n. 53.
    Intoxicating Liquor, 33 C. J., see. 502, p. 758, n. 80.
    
      A chemical analysis of liquor is unnecessary as the possession of spirituous beverages is unlawful whether or not they are intoxicating. (In re Lockman, 18 Ida. 465, 110 Pac. 253, 46 L. R. A., N. S., 759.)
   TAYLOR, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and from an order denying a new trial.

We have thoroughly examined the record, and reach the conclusion that there is substantial evidence to support the verdict, and there appears no error affecting a substantial right of the appellant.

The judgment is affirmed.

Budge, Givens and T. Bailey Lee, JJ., concur.  