
    17333.
    HAMMOCK v. THE STATE.
    1. Under previous rulings there is no merit in the contention relative to evidence^obtained by illegal search and seizure; or in the other special assignments of error.
    2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and no error of law appears.
    Criminal Law, 16 C. J. p. 570, n. 90.
    Decided June 15, 1926.
    Making intoxicating liquor;- from Taylor superior court—Judge McLaughlin. February 6, 1926.
    Application for certiorari was made to the Supreme Court.
    
      Jere M. Moore, Homer Beeland, for plaintiff in error.
    
      W. R. Flournoy, solicitor-general, contra.
   Luke, J.

The defendant was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor. The motion for a new trial complains of the admission of certain testimony because it was obtained by illegal search and seizure. The State’s witness testified that the defendant “didn’t object” to the search and seizure, and the record shows that the defendant was not compelled to furnish and did not furnish the evidence used against him, but that it was found by the officer during his unlawful search. Hnder the facts of this case, and upon the authority of Williams v. State, 100 Ga. 511 (28 S. E. 624, 39 L. R. A. 269), Dozier v. State, 107 Ga. 710 (33 S. E. 418), Duren v. Thomasville, 125 Ga. 1 (2) (53 S. E. 814), Calhoun v. State, 144 Ga. 682 (87 S. E. 893), Lester v. State, 155 Ga. 885 (118 S. E. 674), Glover v. State, 4 Ga. App. 455 (2, 3) (61 S. E. 862), Warren v. State, 6 Ga. App. 18 (2) (64 S. E. 111), Cohen v. State, 7 Ga. App. 5 (2) (65 S. E. 1096), Young v. State, 12 Ga. App. 86 (2) (76 S. E. 753), McAllister v. State, 17 Ga. App. 160 (2) (86 S. E. 412), Fanning v. State, 17 Ga. App. 316 (86 S. E. 731), Lunceford v. State, 17 Ga. App. 415 (87 S. E. 151), Smith v. State, 17 Ga. App. 480 (2) (87 S. E. 713), and Smith v. State, 17 Ga. App. 693, 698 (88 S. E. 42), there is no merit in the plaintiff’s contention relative to evidence obtained by illegal search and seizure. The other special grounds of the motion are without merit.

The evidence authorized the verdict, and no error of law is shown to have been committed.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.  