
    13738.
    Taylor v. The State.
    Decided July 25, 1922.
    Accusation of possession.of liquor; from city court of Camilla — Judge Burson. June 5, 1922.
    Taylor was convicted upon the charge of having control and possession of intoxicating liquor. From the evidence it appeared that in an oak thicket in uninclosed woods and at a distance of from 300 to 400 yards from the defendant’s house a county policeman and his companion found a 60-gallon barrel about half full of whisky in a pit covered with timber and with a drop door, big enough for a man to go in, which had a lock and chain on it and was covered up with dirt, straw, and bunches of wire grass. A lamp and a funnel were in the pit. This was south of the defendant’s house and about 30 or 40 yards north of a road, to which wagon tracks led from the pit. The defendant’s house fronted east on a public road which ran southeast. It did not appear who owned or was'in possession of the woods in which the liquor was found. The policeman testified: “We were in the woods, looking for a five-gallon jug, and we struck some tracks from Mr. Taylor’s house, from which we proceeded to make the search. Mr. Taylor went as far as a little house close to the oak thicket with us, and when we struck the wiregrass he went back to the house. There were two or three different trails that led out in there, and we proceeded to look for the jug. We found two or three holes where'it looked like a 5-gallon jug had been buried but taken up. I . . proceeded to hunt some more. Mr. Gee came with me and I struck a little trail and went on up to a log; . . the pit was beyond it. . . With my foot I scratched around and struck the plank. . . He went and got Mr. Taylor. . . The trail that I speak of led in the direction of Mr. Taylor’s house; some led to the road, others to no special place, but there were several places where a jug appeared to have been buried. . . The dirt that was taken out of that pit was hauled a quarter of a mile or further south. . ' . When Mr. Taylor came up I said to him, * Mr. Taylor, what about it ? ’ And he says, ‘ I don’t know anything about it. My boys are going to ruin me. When I lay down I don’t know what they are going to do at night, and such as this is going to ruin me.’ . . The public road in front of Mr. Taylor’s house came down by that little house and went on south, and it was from this little' house that tracks and trails that I have been speaking of led off. There were several foot tracks coming from that little house on out to the edge of the woods. That trail led off from this road that runs in front of Mr. Taylor’s house. . . It was about 150 or 200 yards down that road before we struck the trails. The road or trail I speak of apparently was made several years ago. Mr. Taylor has two grown sons at home. One of them is indicted for this same offense. . . There were several automobile tracks that had gone up there and near the woods and turned around.” Gee testified to the same effect, as to the trails and paths, and that there was an old field between Taylor’s house and the little house on the edge of the woods. The defendant, in his statement at the trial, said that he knew nothing about the whisky being in the woods.
   Luke, J.

The evidence was insufficient to authorize the conviction. For this reason it was error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodioorth, J., eoneur.

E. E. Cox, for plaintiff in error.

Charles Watt, solicitor, contra.  