Tate v. State

Broyles, C. J.

The evidence tending to connect the accused with the offense of manufacturing whisky, or with the offense of attempting to make it, was wholly circumstantial and was not sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. The refusal of the court to 'grant a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. John B. Guerry, for plaintiff in error. . Jule Felton, solicitor-general, Hollis Fort, solicitor-general, contra.