James v. State

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING

DICE, Commissioner.

Appellant strenuously insists that under the law of circumstantial evidence, which was given to the jury in the court’s charge, the evidence was insufficient to show that he possessed the beer in question or that it was possessed for the purpose of sale.

We have again reviewed the record in the light of such contention, and remain convinced that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction.

It was undisputed that the beer was found on premises occupied and controlled by appellant and his wife. Appellant was present on the premises…