Medlen v. State

The appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted of having a still in his possession. The appeal is prosecuted *859upon, the theory that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.

The testimony for the state was by a deputy sheriff who arrested the appellant, and he testified that a Mr. Nabors and himself found a still on a Mr. Mitchell’s place, and that the defendant, ■ Huie Medlin, was there at the still. He further testified that he identified Medlin by a light shining’ upon his face when bending over at the still; that he thought there were two other parties present — he knew that…