Wood v. State
Opinion
The only point urged in brief is that the , evidence is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence. We have carefully read the record in the light of our decisions holding that the mere presence at a still is not sufficient to convict, but when a defendant is found at a still, in company of others who are admittedly guilty, and it be shown that he did any act towards aiding in the carrying on of the distillery, it becomes a question for the jury to say whether or not he is guilty.
We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
155 So. 388 (Wood v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.