Court Opinion

ID: 9824852
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:33:51.387742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:10.236081
License: Public Domain

RICE, J.
Appellant was convicted of the offense of distilling prohibited liquor.
The only questions presented for our consideration are as to the action of the trial court in, first, refusing to give, at defendant’s request, the general affirmative charge in his favor; and, second, overruling his motion to set aside the verdict of the jury and grant him a new trial.
The state’s evidence, in substance, was that a complete still of from 300 to 500 gallon capacity was found in the woods set up and in full operation, making whisky. Defendant and one Jim Short were there. Por a period of some ten minutes or longer officers, hidden in the brush, watched the still, and saw defendant and Short “stirring around there.” Short was seen to fire the furnace, but defendant was observed to do nothing more than move around the still. When the officers closed in on the operation, defendant fled. He was run down by some of them and brought back, and as the still was being destroyed, according to one of the witnesses, “he (defendant) said he wanted to look in there.” When witness asked what for, defendant replied, “I thought we had scorched that thing, and I wanted to see.”
• This we hold takes this case out from the scope of those decisions cited by appellant, holding that mere presence at a still of this kind is not enough upón which to convict, and authorized the court to submit'the question of appellant’s guilt to the jury. And we think the evidence supported the jury’s finding.
There is no error, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.