Trentham v. State

1. The defendant being charged with the sale of whisky and also with having it in his possession, there was no error in admitting testimony that apparatus for distilling whisky was found on his ’ premises. This was a circumstance which could properly be considered by the jury. Compare Craig v. State, 9 Ga. App. 233 (70 S. E. 974) ; Cole v. State, 120 Ga. 485 (48 S. E. 156).

2. As to the special ground of-the motion for a new -trial based on alleged newly discovered - evidence, the State made a counter-showing, from which it appears that the defendant knew of some of this alleged *135newly…