Leeth v. State

Leeth was convicted of violating the prohibition law. The evi-

dence was wholly circumstantial and, in our opinion, not sufficient to meet the legal requirement. Eor this reason the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

■Judgment reversed.

Bloodworth, J., eoneurs. Broyles, O. J., dissents. R. Garter Pittman, J. B. Rosser, for plaintiff in error,

cited: Hampton v. State, 34 Ga. App. 699; King v. State, 37 Ga. App. 482.

John C. Mitchell, solicitor-general, contra.