
    15187.
    LAWSON v. THE STATE.
    Tlie evidence authorized a conviction under an indictment charging the defendant with having located and permitted the locating of an apparatus for the making of intoxicating liquor on his premises.
    Decided March 6, 1924.
    Indictment for misdemeanor; from Wilcox superior court-judge Crum. November 5, 1923.
    It was contended that the evidence failed to show that the defendant had on his premises a 'complete still or apparatus capable of producing intoxicating liquor, and that for this reason the verdict was unauthorized.
    
      Max E. Land, for plaintiff in error.
    
      J. B. Wall, solicitor-general, J esse Grantham, contra.
   Luke, J.

Lawson was convicted of violating the prohibition statute. The conviction was authorized by the evidence. In fact, when the officers were searching his premises and just before locating several gallons of beer and part of an apparatus for the manufacture of whisky, the defendant, according to the testimony of one witness said to him, “I have got a little outfit here, but I haven’t used it in God knows when.” The grounds of the motion for a new trial which have the approval of the trial judge are without substantial merit. Eor no reason pointed out did the court err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.  