Pryor

Defendant was charged in three separate counts of an information with manufacturing, selling, and having in his possession “certain intoxicating liquor, to wit, brandy then and there containing one-half of one per cent or more of alcohol by volume” in violation of a certain ordinance of the county of Tuolumne. He was convicted’ on all the counts and appeals from the judgment.

The only point made is that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict, but there is no merit whatever in the contention.

As to the first count appellant states his position as follows: “The first charge, the manufacture of liquor was placed before the jury on a presumption, there was no evidence that alcoholic liquor had been manufactured, the only evidence adduced to sustain said charge was the finding of a steamer and some spoiled or decayed grain in a bath-room of appellant’s house, and a tube that was found by a third party in a spring adjacent to the house.” Herein appellant is in error. William Sweeney, the sheriff of the county, testified that on May 21, 1922, he went to the place occupied by defendant, and in response to the question, “ While you were there on this particular occasion did…