It constituted reversible error to allow the state to introduce testimony, over appellant’s timely objection and exception, that appel-

lant had been previously convicted of the offense of distilling, etc., prohibited liquors. Ex parte Marshall, 207 Ala. 566, 93 So. 471, 25 A. L. R. 338; Lakey v. State, 206 Ala. 180, 89 So. 605.

But, aside from this, the court has read the entire evidence in the case, sitting en banc; and, without discussing same, we state our conclusion to be that it was insufficient to support the verdict of the jury findr ing appellant guilty. Appellant’s motion for a new trial should have been granted.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.