The appellant was tried and convicted upon a charge of maintaining a common nuisance in violation of the liquor law (§24, Acts 1925 p. 144, §2740 Burns 1926). The trial was before the court, a jury having been waived, and the only alleged error presented on this appeal is the action of the court in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial, and, under the argument,- the only matter presented is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction.

The only testimony given upon the trial was that given by two officers who, under a search warrant, searched the “soft drink parlor” of appellant, in the latter part of May, 1928. These officers testified to the finding of a large glass full of moonshine whisky back of the bar, and to the finding of a half-gallon bottle of moonshine whisky ‘ ‘under the refrigerator’ ’ in said room. The appellant, who was present at the time said place was searched and said liquor found, told the officers making *611 the search, that he was the owner of the place. There .was also testimony that the reputation of the place was bad, and that there had been a prior conviction for fhaintabling á nuisance thereat.

The finding is sustained by abundant evidence.

Affirmed.