
    C. F. KNOPP v. STATE.
    No. A-7359.
    Opinion Filed Oct. 11, 1930.
    Rehearing Denied Nov. 15, 1930.
    (292 Pac. 883.)
    Joe Adwon and S. A. Horton, for plaintiff in error.
    The Attorney General, for the State.
   CHAPPELL, J.

The evidence of the state was that the officers had a search warrant for a Ford coupe, the property of Alice Jones, who was the defendant’s daughter; that they arrested the defendant and his daughter, Alice Jones, and a woman named Ellen Wofford; that all of the parties were in this Ford coupe; that in the front of the car, near defendant’s feet, they found a half gallon of wine, and in the turtle back of the car they found nine gallons of whisky. The Jones and Wofford women pleaded guilty to the charge of transporting liquor. These women, testifying for the defendant, attempted to take all of tbe blame for tbe possession of tbe liquor. Tbe defendant took tbe stand and denied that be knew tbe liquor was in tbe car or bad anything to do with it.

Tbe state then called in rebuttal tbe officers who made tbe arrest, and they testified that the Wofford woman told them that tbe defendant and bis daughter took tbe car at Chickasha and were gone together a couple of hours, and when they returned tbe wine was in tbe front of tbe car, but that she knew nothing about tbe whisky in tbe back of tbe car until about tbe time tbe officers arrested them, when tbe Jones woman told her that there was whisky in the back of tbe car.

Tbe question presented is, Was this evidence sufficient to justify tbe jury in returning a verdict of guilty against tbe defendant? Defendant admits be made tbe trip to Chickasha Avith bis daughter and was riding in tbe car at tbe time of tbe arrest. All tbe facts and circumstances in tbe case point unerringly to tbe fact that defendant knew that this liquor was in the car and was participating in its transportation. Tbe jury saw the witnesses and beard them testify; they were in proper position to determine who1 was telling the truth, and, where there is a conflict in the evidence, this court will not disturb tlie verdict of the jury where there is competent evidence to support tbe same.

For tbe reasons stated, tbe cause is affirmed.

EDWARDS, P. J., and DAVENPORT, J., concur.  