942 DAVIS AND SMITH V. STATE. -[169 • DAVIS AND SMITH V. STATE: • Opinion delivered November 23, 19251 1. • : INTOXIdATING LIQUORS--EVIDENCE—Evidence 71/4d sufficient to warrant conviction of possessing a still. . 2. WITNESSES IMPEACHMENT ON CROSS-EXAMINATION.—In a prose-, cution for Making mash fit for distillation and . for possessing • a still, accused waS preperly asked on crosS-diainihatiOh -a:s 'to ' what hid been found in 'a cold drink stand . Whieh he operated;' and -whether he had not paid a fine for possesiing. Appeal frOm ;Union Circuit Court; L. :S.-.Bkti; JIM& affirmed. H. W.' Api . legate; AttOrney Geii.6igt; Moose, Assistant, for appellee.. . SMITH; J. Appellants Davis and Smith were :tried under an indictthent containing two cOUnt g , the first„of which Charged them with making a Mash fit 'for distillation, and the second with possessing 'a still.' TheY were convicted on the second count; and 'have . appealed. We haVe not been favored by appellants With a brief on their apPeal, but it appears from the motimi for a new.: trial that the only errors assigned for the reverSal the judgment are that the verdict is 'contrary to the law . - and- the evidence, *and that the Court erred in the ad:: misSiOn of certain testimony. ._. • ClYde Duck, a witneSs for the State, testified thatlhe'; fonnd a , still-near Sinackover in the *oods. There were.. twelVe barrels of mash near the Still and a numberi'of, frnif jars, several of which had contained liquor. The coil an:d still *ere disconnected, but the dr= in .which the Mash was boiled was still warm. .The I viitnesS found the still about three o 'Clock in the afternoon, and he- returned to it the next morning at two o 'clock, and remained there until eleverCe 'clock in the morning, but no one showed - np: The following morning witness went back to the still between five and seven o'clock, and he saw appellants come down a trail through a thicket to the still. They came to within a quarter of a mile of the still in a Ford car, and walked the remainder of the distance.
ARK.1 DAVIS AND SMITH V. STATE. 943 There was an indistinct trail leading through the underbrush from the car to the still, and appellants followed this trail directly to the still. Witness was accompanied by George Lee and two other companion's, whO were on opposite , sides of the still. Witness saw appellant Davis walk up to the barrels of mash and look into them, and appellant Smith walked near Lee, who ari l -ested Sinith, and witness arrested appellant Davis. . Lee corroborated Duck, and they testified that there were automobile tracks leading to the path whichled to the stiil, and these tracks were made by the same kind of casing as the one on the car • appellants were driving. , Appellant Davis testified -that he knew where the Still wa,..as he had run across it one day .while bunting seitirrelS, and that he found a man named Xennedy,in charge, who Igave him a drink of whiskey, and that he and Smith had gone to the still for the purpose of buying whiSkey 'from .Kennedy .when they, were, arrested. ThelState offered testimony in rebuttal to the effect that appellants had said that the still. belonged to one O'Neal, and Kennedy testified that while he was in jail with appellants they had attempted to induce him to swear that , the .st , ill did belong to one O'Neal, and he denied that-he had anything to do with the still, or. that appellants had seen him there, or that he had sold them any, whiSkey. . We think the testimony set out above warranted the jury in finding that appellants were in possession of the still. During the cross-examination of appellant Davis, who had testified in his own behalf, he .was asked 'what had been found in.a , cold drink stand which he operated, and if he bad not, paid.a fine . for possessing intoxicating liqupr. Upon being required to answer these questions, appellant admitted that he had paid a fine for possessing intoxicating liquor. These were proper questions on the cross-examination. Holden v. State, 156 Ark. 521. We, find •no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.