—Appellant was convicted of violating the prohibition law in force in Bed Biver County.

His contention is that the evidence does not show a sale, in that it does not show a delivery of the whisky by appellant. Walter Keeton testified that he knew appellant and approached and told him he desired some whisky. . Appellant said that he had some at home in his trunk; that he paid appellant $3 for the whisky, and went to appellant’s home, and appellant’s brother showed him which.was appellant’s trunk, and he went into it and got a quart of whisky. This was a sale, and the court did not err in so holding.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.