Huntsman

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction upon an information filed by the district attorney of Los Angeles County, charging him with the crime of “possession of a still,” and from an order denying his motion for a new trial of the action. In urging a reversal of the judgment, appellant presents the following grounds:

It is undisputed that the officers who arrested the defendant found a complete still at No. 4234 Los Nietos Drive, but defendant denies any knowledge of the existence of the still or that he was in any way responsible for its maintenance, although he admits that he is the owner of the property where the still was found.

The evidence bearing upon the disputed question is mainly circumstantial, and while the evidence of the state connecting the defendant with the still is not as strong as in most eases that come before ns for review, we are of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence to justify the inference necessarily involved in the verdict, that the defendant either owned or had some interest in maintaining the still. To recite and review the evidence in detail would extend this opinion to an unwarranted length. We feel that it will meet the…