1. Under the rule stated in Smith v. State,
2. The defendant contends that the evidence merely shows that the defendant *Page 583 was present at the still; but it further appears that the still was in operation, and that the defendant fled when the presence of the officers became known. Evidence of another previous indictment with a plea of guilty thereon was admissible for the purpose of showing motive and intent; and the court so instructed the jury.
3. The judge did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.
Judgment affirmed. Broyles, C. J., and Gardner, J.,concur.
