The defendant was convicted of the offense of gaming. His case is here upon the sole assignment of error that the evidence does not authorize the verdict. Upon a careful examination of the evidence we are convinced that there is some evidence to authorize the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge. It was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

■Judgment affirmed.

dissenting. I do not agree to the conclusion reached *622.by the majority in this case. The only positive evidence was to the effect that the defendant was about to engage in a game played with cards. The only witness that was present and saw the defendant and another person sitting at a table swears positively that at the time the officers made the raid, no game of cards had been played. I am of the opinion that the motion for a new trial should have been granted.