1. Where a case proceeds to trial against two defendants without objection, and there is introduced evidence by one .of the defendаnts, and no evidence is introduced by thе ’other defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to open and conclude the argument; and an exception by the defendant who introduced no evidеnce, to a ruling of the trial judge denying him the right to open and conclude the argument, is without merit. King v. King, 37 Ga. 205.
2. Evidence that an аutomobile was found disabled and partially wrecked in a public road, that the inside of the automobile was wеt and saturated with a liquid that smelt strongly of corn whisky, that there was found near the automobile, on the side of the road under a wire fence, an imprint of а keg, and close thereby in the bushes sеveral kegs were found, one of whiсh contained a liquid, and all smelling strongly' оf corn whisky, is sufficient to warrant the inference that the automobile was еngaged in transporting intoxicating liquors аlong the public road, contrary tо law.
3. The trial judge did not err in admitting evidenсe to the effect that, about twеnty minutes after the automobile was wrecked, several men came uр in another automobile and went intо the woods in the neighborhood of the wrecked automobile and found some kegs, which they placed in their аutomobile and hauled away, and that an hour and a half after the allеged wreck several kegs and a jug whiсh smelt strongly of whisky were found in the neighborhood of the wreck. Such evidence was relevant to the issue and tendеd to establish the fact that the disablеd automobile had been engaged in transporting intoxicating liquor.
4. There wаs evidence to support the vеrdict condemning the automobile аs the property of the defendant upon the ground that it was, with his knowledge, engaged in transporting intoxicating liquor along a public road in the county, contrary to law.
Judgment affirmed.