
    STATE v. S. G. BRADSHAW.
    (Filed 1 November, 1922.)
    Intoxicating Liquor — Spirituous Liquor — Statutes—Evidence—Possession —Criminal Law.
    Evidence that half a gallon of whiskey, in a fruit jar, and one pint thereof, in a bottle, were found concealed in defendant’s overcoat, hanging in his store, and of his breaking the jug and bottle in the officer’s presence, and saying, “Damn it, if I can’t drink it, I guess you won’t get to drink it either,” is sufficient to sustain a verdict that the defendant was guilty of receiving more than one quart of spirituous liquor at one time, or in a single container or package, as prohibited by C. S., 3385.
    Appeal by defendant from Kerr, J., at the June Term, 1922, of ALAMANCE.
    Criminal prosecution, tried upon an indictment charging the defendant with receiving more than one quart of spirituous liquors at one time, or in a single package, in violation of C. S., 3385.
    From an adverse verdict and judgment thereon, the defendant appealed.
    
      Attorney-General Manning and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.
    
    
      No counsel for defendant.
    
   Stacy, J.

Tbe only exception presented for our consideration is tbe one directed to bis Honor’s refusal to grant tbe defendant’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit.

It appears from tbe State’s evidence — there was none offered by tbe defendant — tbat Sheriff Story and bis deputy, while searching tbe premises of tbe defendant on 22 February, 1922, found one pint of corn whiskey in tbe pocket of an overcoat, banging on tbe wall of defendant’s store, and one-balf gallon of corn whiskey in a fruit jar which was tied in tbe sleeve of tbe overcoat. Tbe defendant admitted tbat tbe overcoat belonged to him. Tbe officers also found in defendant’s store a number of fruit jars which bad tbe odor of whiskey about them. Soon after tbe witnesses bad found tbe whiskey and set it on tbe counter, tbe defendant broke both vessels, remarking at tbe time: “Damn it, if I can’t drink it, I guess you won’t get to drink it either.”

This evidence was amply sufficient to warrant the jury in finding, as they did, tbat tbe defendant bad received more than one quart of spirituous liquors at one time, or in a single container or package, as prohibited by 0. S., 3385. Tbe evidence here is fully as strong as tbat in tbe ease of S. v. Alston, 183 N. C., 135, where a similar conviction was sustained.

No error.  