Pierce v. State ( 1929 )

Broyles, C. J.

The accused was convicted of manufacturing whisky. The evidence, while authorizing a finding that he was guilty of an attempt to manufacture whisky, was insufficient to support the verdict, and the refusal to grant him a new trial was error. As this ruling is controlling in the case, the special assignments of error are not dealt with.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. D. W. Mitchell, for plaintiff in error. ■John 0. Mitchell, solicitor-general, contra.