Passintino

The defendant was charged by an information filed in the superior court of Santa Clara County with a felony, to wit, that on January 21, 1928, he did wilfully, unlawfully, and knowingly have in his possession and control a still and stilling device intended for use and used in the manufacture and production of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes. A jury returned a verdict of conviction, and from a judgment entered thereon and an order denying a new trial the appeal was taken.

It is contended as grounds for reversal that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict; that the verdict was against law; that the court erroneously instructed the jury, and that certain statements by the prosecuting attorney constituted prejudicial misconduct.

The evidence showed that the defendant with his family occupied a dwelling situated on a 40-acre ranch the title to which stood in the name of defendant’s wife; that in the rear of the dwelling distant about 60 feet was a barn, a part of which was used as a garage; that between 350 and 400 feet further to the rear was a shed or still-house in which was found the still in question. Between the garage and still-house wires were strung by…