#### STATE v. LLOYD BAKER, MANS GASPERSON, and HARRY GASPERSON.

(Filed 13 December, 1922.)

Intoxicating Liquor — Spirituous Liquor — Evidence—Questions for Jury— Constitutional Law.

The evidence in this case held sufficient on appeal to sustain a verdict convicting, the defendant of the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and our State statute on the subject does not contravene the XVIII Amendment to the Federal Constitution.

Appeal by defendants from Shaw, J., at March Term, 1922, of BUNCOMBE.

Criminal prosecution, tried upon an indictment charging the defendants with engaging in the manufacture -of. spirituous liquors in violation of the State statutes.

*753From an adverse verdict and judgment pronounced tbereon, tbe defendants appealed.

Attorney-General Manning and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.

Reynolds, Reynolds & Howell for defendants.

Stacy, J.

Tbe defendants’ first and second exceptions are directed to bis Honor’s refusal to grant tbeir motions for judgments as of non-suit, made first at tbe close of tbe State’s evidence and renewed at tbe close of all tbe evidence.

Bobert Gilliam, a witness for tbe State, testified tbat be bad seen all three of tbe defendants personally engaged in tbe operation of an illicit distillery in Buncombe County witbin tbe past two years; tbat, to bis own knowledge, eacb and every one of*tbe said defendants bad done work and taken a part in tbe manufacture of said intoxicating liquors. Tbis evidence, while denied by tbe defendants, was amply sufficient to carry tbe case to tbe jury. Tbe defendants, having lost before tbe jury, doubtless appealed “to see bow it might strike tbe Court.”

Tbe remaining exceptions, calling in question tbe validity of our State statutes since tbe adoption of tbe XVIII Amendment to tbe Constitution of tbe United States, must Fe overruled on authority of S. v. Campbell, 182 N. C., 911, and cases there cited.

No error.