#### STATE v. JIM KNIGHT.

(Filed 26 November, 1924.)

Intoxicating liquor — Spirituous liquor — Statutes—Turlington Act— Possession.

Evidence tending to show that the defendant had intoxicating liquor in his possession before the efficacy of the Turlington Act, is not a defense under the provisions of this act for the defendant’s possession a year thereafter, upon the trial" for violating the prohibition law.

Appeal by defendant from judgment of Lane. J., at September Term, 1924, of ÁNSON.

Defendant was tried upon an indictment containing three counts, each charging a violation of the prohibition laws of the State. He testified, as a witness in his own behalf, as follows: “The half-pint of whiskey is mine. I had it for three years or more before March, 1924. It has been in this grape-juice bottle on the shelf in my store all the time. It has been nearly four years since I drank any, and I had this when I quit, and decided to keep it. I do not remember from whom I bought the half-pint of liquor, but I had it when I quit drinking. I knew it was there all the time.”

The court instructed the jury as follows: “If you believe the evidence, gentlemen of the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant’s own evidence, you will find him guilty of possessing liquor. Tou can render your verdict where you are, if you want to.”

Defendant excepted to the charge of the court. There was a verdict of guilty. From the judgment defendant appealed, assigning as error the instruction of the court.

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

McLendon & Covington for defendant.

Connor, J.

By section 2 of chapter 1, Public Laws 1923, the Tur-lington Act, it is provided that -no person shall possess any intoxicating liquor except as authorized in this act. This act was ratified on 1 March, 1923. Defendant contends that possession by him of intoxicating liquor in March, 1924, which he had in his possession prior to the ratification of the Turlington Act, is not unlawful, and that therefore there was error in the instruction to the jury. There is no provision in the Turlington Act authorizing any person to retain in his possession, after its ratification, intoxicating liquor which he had in his possession prior to its ratification. The defendant has not been convicted of having intoxicating liquor in his possession prior to the ratifi*631cation of tbe Turlington Act. He testified tbat be bad tbe balf-pint of whiskey in bis possession in March, 1924. There is no evidence'tbat such possession was authorized by any provision of tbe act of 1923.

There was no error in tbe instruction of tbe court. S. v. McAllister, 187 N. C., 400; S. v. Hammond, ante, 602.

No error.