Each of the appellants was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes. Alcee Benoit was sentenced to pay a fine of $500 and costs, and to be imprisoned 60 days, and, in default of payment of the fine, to be imprisoned 9 months longer. Each of the two other defendants was sentenced to pay a fine of $500 and costs, and to be imprisoned 60 days, and, in default of payment of the fine, to be imprisoned 6 months longer.

*243 Every issue in each of the three cases was decided to-day in State v. Doras- Hebert (No. 26165) 103 So. 742.1 Eor the reasons given in that case, the verdict in each of these cases must be affirmed. But the sentence is excessive. When the judge sentenced each defendant to pay a fine of $500 and costs and to be imprisoned 60 days, he imposed the maximum penalty under the statute that was violated. Act 39 of Ex. Sess. 1921, p. 42.

The verdict in each case is affirmed; the sentence of each defendant to pay a fine of $500 and costs and to bo imprisoned 60 days is affirmed; the additional sentence of imprisonment of Alcee Benoit for 9 months and of each of the two other defendants for 6 months is annulled.

On Rehearing.

By the WHOLE COURT.

A rehearing was granted in this case upon the point alone decided in State v. Doras Hebert (No. 26165) 103 So. 742, 1 on the 11th day of April, 1924; that is, as to the right of the lower court to impose an alternative jail sentence under section 980 of the Revised Statutes, for failure to pay the fine imposed under Act No. 39, Ex. Sess. of 1921 known as the Hood Bill.

Eor the reasons assigned in the Hebert Case on rehearing, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.