Rous

The appellant and three others were charged by information with having owned and operated distilling apparatus and paraphernalia designed and intended for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor. Upon a separate trial by a jury the appellant was found guilty, and appeals from the judgment and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

The fact that he was a part owner of the property with the others, and that he financed its establishment and operation, was shown by his co-defendants. Peace officers witnessed the removal of the still from Bell, California, to Azusa, in Los Angeles County; the wife of a co-defendant swore that appellant visited the premises last mentioned on three occasions after the apparatus was set up, and that he brought sugar; that he instructed her to leave the premises at once if officers should appear. It further appeared that appellant stated that he had been informed of an intended raid of the premises at Bell, and that he was instrumental in borrowing a truck and in causing the plant to be moved to Azusa, where it was found by the officers, in operation.

It is first insisted with much earnestness that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant a…