I- «¡uot“ting presumption: I. The complaint of appellants in ■ this appеal’ is directed solely against instruction No. 7, given by the trial court. The instruction in question dealt with the provisions of section 2427 of the Code. Such section is in part аs follows: “The finding of intoxicating liquors in the possession of one not legally authorized to sell or use the sаme, except in a private dwelling house, which dоes not include or is not used in connection with a tavern, public eating house, restaurant, grocery, оr other place of public resort, or the finding of the same in unusual quantities in a private dwelling house оr its dependencies or any person keeping a tavern, public eating house, grocery, or оther place of public resort, shall be presumptive evidence that such liquors are kept for illegal sale.”, In dealing with the provisions of this section, the trial court instructed that this presumption obtained if intoxicating liquor is “found or seen” or “is in any building which is a plаce of public resort,” etc. The contention of appellants is that it is not sufficient that intoxicating liquor be in fact contained in such a building, or that it shall hаve been seen therein. They contend, further, that the prеsumption of the statute can only obtain in cases where intoxicating liquor has been “found” in such a building by an оfficer under a search warrant.. No authorities аre cited in support of this contention. It impressеs us as quite unsound. We can think of no good reason why suсh a limited meaning should be attached to the word “fоund,” as contained in the statute. Proof of the possession of intoxicating liquor by the defendants in a “public eating house” is the substantial fact within the contemрlation of the statute. The method of proof is not defined by the statute.
*531presumption: mstruction.*530II. The defendants further complain in that the trial court failed to instruct that the statutory рresumption is disputable or rebuttable by other evidence. We would be *531disposed to sustain this contentiоn, if there were any evidence in the record bеfore us tending in any degree to rebut or overcome such presump- . ° . x ^ tion. The appellants havе chosen to present their appeal withоut incorporating any evidence in the record. We must presume, therefore, that the instructions were applicable to the state of the evidence, and that there was no evidence tending tо rebut such presumption. In the absence of all еvidence from the record, the point thus made by thе appellants is not available to them.
No other error is assigned‘. The judgment below must therefore be affirmed.
