It may be doubted whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a conviction under the decisions in S. v. Hege, 194 N. C., 526, 140 S. E., 80, and S. v. Mull, 193 N. C., 668, 131 S. E., 866. But, however this may be, the verdict is not sufficient to support a judgment. S. v. Barbee, 197 N. C., 248, 148 S. E., 249. It neither alludes to the warrant nor uses language to show a conviction of the offense charged therein. S. v. Shew, 194 N. C., 690, 140 S. E., 621. It is entirely consistent with the defendant’s contention that the possession was lawful. S. v. Mull, supra; S. v. Hammond, 188 N. C., 602, 125 S. E., 402.

Had the verdict been “guilty of possession as charged in the second count,” or simply “guilty as charged in the second count,” the situation would have been different, but when the jury undertakes to spell out its verdict without specific reference to the charge, as in the instant case, it is essential that the spelling be correct. S. v. Parker, 152 N. C., 790, 67 S. E., 35.

Venire de novo.