FRANCIS V....STATE. 431 . ,F,RANCIS • V. •STATE.. Opinion'deliVered May'28, 1.• , CRIMINAL LAW-NECESSITY OP OBJECTION TO PROCEEDINGS AT .TRI I AL. - —Where the ' record fails . to 'show thnt defendant objcteci ' to going • to trial or made a motion for continuarice;he • eOuld • no coniPtain • • on' appeal that his witnessei Were • ahient. • ••1 ' •• 2. INTOXICATING 'LIQUORSCONVICTIO N OP' -POSSESSING ' g TILL; = Evii dence showing defendant's presence ; at: a still, pouring watë1 on ., the -worm and assisting in :the manufacture' Of ,liquot held suffl,.-:! cient to sustain a . conviction -for. po . ssess . ing, a . s . t i • l l and m . anufacn • - turing whiskey: Appeal from Clark Circuit Court;.V. H. McCollum; Judge; a.ffirmed: -• R. W. Huie, Jr.; , .for app , ellant. H. yr. : Applegate, Attorney- : C+eneral i and ,Dard,eu,, Moose, Assistant, for 'appellee. 1. . . KIRBY, J. These appeals'arefrom'judgnients-of,eonT viction of appellant .for possessing al still •and•rnanufae-- turing whiskey. These cases are consolidated here. ./ It is' insisted for reversal that the testimony is insufficient to support the judgment, and that the court erred in compelling appellant to go to trial in the absence of his witnesses. •• • . : ; The testimony:shows that the. sheriff .and his posse had come out to where this still was situated,.and . found, it. in operatioh on the da* Y, in qii0tiOn,. the , apPellant' being.present in and about -the . still,, and pOuring water from the branch on the. stillworm in the trough. Halad on overalls, and was smutty and . greasy, as, though he had been working abont it.. Two empty legs \ve iri 'hi.S. ear: ..• • •• • . . ,s• :-..• r e foUnd: He testified that' he ,was :a farmer, liVed . 20.. miles away, and had come down to.the still :t0 get-some,whiskey.- Accounted for his appearance by- saying.that he had'had trouble with his ear befOre'arriVink; and haeput . oir his overalls and 'fixed * if,. getting . grease and dirt on his clothing. • . -
432 -[177 It is argued that alist . of his -Witnesses had been given to the sheriff, but they had not -been subpoenaed and were not present at the trial, and that he would have beeri able to show by them that he . did not own the still or have it in posession. The record does not show. that . he objected to going to trial, nor did- he-make a motion for continuance because of the absence-of his witnesses, and, such being the -case, he is not in position to complain about the matter here firouni v. State, 169 Ark. 324, 274 S. W. 1. . The testimony is meager as to his -oWnership or possession of the still, but he was present while the still was in operation, was pouring water on the worm and assisting in the manufacture of . liquor that was being-run at the time, and there was a quantity of mash on hand and enengh operatives assisting to complete the manufacture, of the mash into whiskey. . The testimony. is sufficient to- support the verdict, and' the judgment in each- case 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.