The defendant was convicted under an indictment which in two counts charged the manufacture of whisky and possessing a still, and from the judgment he appeals.

Thei’e was no evidence to connect the defendant either with the manufacture of whisky or the possession of a still, other than his mere presence at a still located on lands not in his possession. It has many times been held by this court that this is not sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. The defendant was entitled to the general affirmative charge. Moon v. State (Ala. App.) 95 South. 830; 1 Guin v. State, ante, p. 67, 94 South. 788; Morris v. State, 18 Ala. App. 456, 93 South. 61.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded. , ,

Reversed and remanded.