The accusation against this defendant was a violation of the prohibition law. He was convicted by the jury, and was duly sentenced to perform hard labor for the county, and appealed. There was a conflict in the evidence, and the jury decided adversely to defendant. In so doing they were amply justified by the evidence. The exceptions reserved to the court’s rulings upon the admission of evidence are so clearly without merit they need not be discussed. The judgment is afiirmed. Affirmed. ,