Carroll v. State ( 1931 )

Broyles, C. J.

The evidence as to whether the defendant had possession of whisky was in acute conflict, but that question of fact was finally settled against him by the verdict finding him guilty; and that finding having been approved by-the trial judge, and no error of law being complained of, this court is without authority to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Luhe and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.