There was direct evidence that whisky was delivered by an agent of the accused. Whether a sale was intended or consummated depended upon circumstantial evidence. It was, therefore, not error to charge the law relating to both direct and circumstantial evidence. The conviction was warranted. Judgment affirmed.
Accusation of sale of liquor; from city court of Jefferson— Judge Johns. January 7, 1913. Bay & Bay, for plaintiff in error. P. Cooley, solicitor, contra.