[1] Criminal Law—Giving Away of Alcoholic Liquors in No-license Territory—Verdict—Evidence.—In this prosecution under , the local option, law for willfully, knowingly and unlawfully selling, furnishing, distributing, and giving away alcoholic liquor within no-license territory, the verdict of guilty was sufficiently supported by the evidence, although much of the evidence was of a circumstantial character.

[2] Id.—What Constitutes Violation.—If the defendant, in such prosecution, by any means or method or in any manher gave or furnished or distributed intoxicating liquor to other persons within no-license territory, he was guilty under the statute of the offense charged. It was not necessary that he personally have performed the physical act of passing the liquor to the parties.

[3] Id.—Evidence—Probative Value—Admissibility.—Evidence is not rendered inadmissible because of the fact that it may he of small probative value as proof of the offense charged.

[4] Id.—Hostile Witness—Leading Questions.—Where in such prosecution for unlawfully giving away liquor in no-lieense territory one of the witnesses appeared to be hostile to the prosecution—that is, inclined to tell as little as possible of what he actually knew—the defendant could not have suffered any damage from, leading questions which the court permitted the district attorney to ask.

[5] Id.—Self-serving Declarations—Intended Use of Liquor.—In such prosecution, the court properly sustained the prosecution’s objection to a question by defendant’s counsel to a brother of the defendant calling for a declaration by the latter that the liquor which he had requested the witness to procure for him was,to be taken to and used at the defendant’s home.

[6] Id.—Instructions—Conviction upon Circumstantial Evidence.— In this prosecution, it was not error to instruct the jury that “there is nothing in the nature of circumstantial evidence that renders it any less reliable than the other class of evidence. All that is required is this: If the testimony is" sufficient to convince you as reasonable men beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did commit the act charged, then I charge you that it is your duty to convict, although such evidence may be of a cireumstantial nature." Such instruction does not warrant an implication that the jury were authorized to convict on evidence not sufficiently convincing to show the defendant’s guilt to a moral certainty.

4. Permitting leading questions as matter within discretion of trial court, note, 17 Ana. Cas. 840.

6. Relative value of circumstantial and direct evidence, note, 97 Am, St. Rep. 774.

6. Instructions on circumstantial evidence, note, 97 Am. St. Rep: 789.

[7] Id.—Giving Away op Liquor—Knowledge op Dependant.—In such prosecution, the court did not commit error in modifying two of defendant’s proposed instructions, by adding thereto that if the defendant knew that any person or persons were drinking from his jug of whisky, and> so knowing that fact, acquiesced in, consented to, or encouraged such person or persons to drink from said jug, in that case he would be guilty, although he did not personally hand or deliver Said jug to such person or persons.