#### STATE v. J. C. CRADLE.

(Filed 2 March, 1938.)

Constitutional Law § 14: Criminal Law § 43 — Affidavit for search warrant signed by chief of police meets requirements of the statute.

An affidavit for a search warrant signed by the chief of police is sufficient compliance with ch. 339, sec. 1%, Public Laws of 1931, since if the chief of police is not the informant he is “some other person,” and the statute does not require that the informant should make the affidavit, or that the person signing the affidavit should state therein who his informant is, and evidence obtained on a search warrant issued on such affidavit is competent.

Appeal by defendant from Bone, J., at January Term, 1938, of WASHINGTON. No error.

Attorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorney-General McMullan for the State.

P. H. Bell for defendant, appellant.

Per Curiam.

Tbe defendant was convicted of having in bis possession liquor upon wbicb tbe tax bad not been paid, and from judgment of imprisonment appealed, assigning as error tbe denial by tbe court of bis motion to suppress evidence of certain facts discovered by reason of tbe issuance of a search warrant.

Tbe affidavit, upon wbicb tbe search warrant was issued, was made by P. W. Brown, chief of police, wbo was tbe “complainant,” or if not *218the complainant be was at least some “other person” and met the requirement of the statute, Public Laws 1937, ch. 339, sec. 1%, upon which the appellant relies, and therefore the facts discovered by reason of the search warrant were not rendered incompetent. There is nothing in the statute that requires the complainant or other person who makes the affidavit to state therein who his informant is, or which requires the informant to make the affidavit, as seems to be the contention of the appellant.

In the trial we find

No error.