Appellant was convicted of the offense of illegally having in possession “prohibited liquor.”

The State’s evidence made out every element of the offense charged. There was none opposed. The punishment inflicted was the minimum, under the law.

Without stultifying themselves, the jury could not have returned a verdict of acquittal.

So, misconduct on their part, even if it occurred — -which we do not decide — could not have worked prejudice to appellant.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.