Moore v. State

GtUerry, J. Presence of the defendant at a still in actual operation and producing whisky; his flight upon being discovered thereat, together with evidence that he was “toting wood” and firing the furnace, are amply sufficient to support a conviction of manufacturing liquor. Judgment affirmed. Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur. J. A. Mitchell, P. H. Mitchell, for plaintiff in error. J. Cedi Davis, solicitor-general, contra.