Jackson v. State

1. This case falls within the well-settled rule, that where one receives money and in consideration therefor delivers intoxicating liquor, he is presumed to he the seller, and his conviction is authorized, unless he shows to the satisfaction of the jury that he was not the seller nor interested in the sale. To meet the prima facie ease made by the State in the present case, the accused relied solely upon his own statement, *148■which the jury had a right to disbelieve. The case differs from that of Davis v. State, this day decided, ante, 142 (78 S. E. 866). In that ease the evidence relied on by…