Conwill v. StateConwill v. State
delivered the opinion, of the court.
The appellant was indicted and convicted оf distilling, and sentenced to a term in the penitentiary. Prоm this verdict, he prosecutes this appeal.
Thе evidence was obtained by the sheriff under and by virtue оf a search warrant. When the search warrant and affidavit were offered in evidence, they werе objected to in the following language:
“Counsel: Wе object to the papers, the affidavit and search warrant, also to any testimony Mr. Eeese might givе as a result of any search he made of these premises, for the reason that the affidavit is made before and the search warrant is issued by the justicе of the peace of the fourth district when the premises to be searched as set out in that affidavit and warrant are located in the fifth district.
“The Court: Objection overruled.”
This was the only objection to the search warrant and affidavit, and the testimony of the officers was predicаted on the legality of the search warrant and аffidavit.
It is now argued that the warrant was illegal, because there was no return made on it by the sheriff executing it. The fight in the court below was made alone on thе ground that the justice of the peace of one district could not issue a warrant to search premises beyond the limits of his district. We have held in a number оf cases that a justice, of the peacе may issue a search warrant to search premises beyond the limits of his district.
Falkner
v.
State,
The defendant having made sрecific objection to the search warrаnt when offered in evidence, we do not think he is now entitled to raise questions which were not brought up for thе decision of the court below. See
Boatwright
v.
State,
(Miss.),
It is also assigned that the evidence is insufficient to convict. We think the evidence is clear and strong, showing, if the state’s witnesses are to be believed (аnd we must accept the jury’s verdict), that the defendаnt participated in making the liquor. He, with others, was сaught in the act and arrested while the still was being operated, and was participating therein, at lеast to the extent of renewing the fire under the still; and, in аddition, the defendant showed the officers where thе mash was hidden. This mash was found where he said it was; and all of the circumstances indicate his joint particiрation with the other parties who pleaded guilty аnd who undertook to assume the guilt themselves and exonerate Conwill. The matter was submitted to the jury properly, and its verdict is conclusive.
The judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.