Echols v. State

Broyles, C. J.

The evidence connecting the accused with the offense charged (possessing whisky), though wholly circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt; and, that finding having been approved by the trial judge, and no error of law appearing, this court is without authority to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.