#### STATE v. WESTBROOK STRICKLAND.

(Filed 7 October, 1925.)

Appeal by defendant from Lyon, J., at May Term, 1925, of SampsoN. No error.

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

Fowler & Grumpier, C. L. Guy and J. F. Wilson for defendant.

Pee CubiaM.

In an indictment containing three counts the defendant was charged with the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor in breach of C. S., vol. Ill, 3367 and 3411(b); with the unlawful possession of materials, substances, and property intended for use in breach of C. S., vol. Ill, 3411(d) ; and with the possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale in breach of 0. S., 3379. The jury returned for its verdict : “Guilty in the manner and form charged in the indictment.”

The assignments of error relate to the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action as in case of nonsuit; and to the trial judge’s failure to in*859struct tbe jury as to tbe defendant’s contentions and as to tbe legal significance of aiding and abetting. Neither exception can be sustained. There was sufficient evidence to sustain tbe verdict, and tbe charge is not made a part of tbe record. There is a presumption that it was correct, and it is incumbent on tbe appellant to show error. Tbe statute provides that tbe appellant shall cause to be prepared a concise statement of tbe case embodying tbe instructions of tbe judge if .there be an exception thereto in order that tbe Court may examine into tbe legal sufficiency of tbe instruction excepted to.

No error.