Mills v. State

1. A witness for the State having testified that he bought intoxicating liquor from the accused a large number of times during the two years immediately preceding the finding of the bill of indictment, it was not erroneous to admit, in corroboration of this evidence, the testimony of another witness, that during this period he had seen the accused several times with “his pockets loaded with whisky.”

2. The following instruction was a correct statement of the law: “It would not be necessary to show, in order to warrant a conviction, that the person who sold the liquor was the real owner of the…