#### STATE v. JAMES ROBERT PARSONS.

(Filed 22 March, 1950.)

1. Automobiles § 30d—

Testimony of two witnesses to the effect that at the time in question defendant was drunk or intoxicated, held sufficient upon the question to be submitted to the jury in a prosecution for drunken driving.

2. Criminal Law § 53i—

Charge of the court as to the scrutiny to be given testimony of defendant in his own behalf, held without error.

Appeal by defendant from Rousseau, J., December Term, 1949, of Wilkes.

Criminal prosecution on indictment charging tbe defendant witb operating a motor vehicle on tbe public highways of Wilkes County while under tbe influence of intoxicants.

Tbe record discloses that on tbe afternoon of 4 September, 1949, tbe defendant and one Ward Snarr were traveling in tbe same direction in automobiles on tbe Roaring- River road near Ronda in Wilkes County. Snarr first passed tbe defendant and apparently irritated him by bis driving. Tbe defendant then passed Snarr, stopped bis car and backed it into tbe Snarr car. Tbe two then engaged in a bit of name calling and some quarreling.

Tbe witness Snarr testified that in bis opinion tbe defendant was drunk. C. G. Johnson, a bystander, also testified that in bis opinion tbe defendant was “under tbe intoxication of something at tbe time.” Tbe arresting officer said that when be arrested tbe defendant some three hours later be was not then drunk, but that be did have tbe odor of an intoxicant on bis breath.

Tbe defendant testified that be was not drunk; that be bad not bad any liquor at all that day, but did admit be bad taken a bottle of beer around 10 or 10:30 o’clock that morning. He said be was only provoked by Snarr’s discourteous driving on tbe highway.

Verdict: Guilty as charged in tbe bill of indictment.

Judgment: Ninety days on the roads; also driver’s license to be surrendered to tbe Clerk for transmission to Motor Vehicle Bureau for purposes of revocation.

*600Defendant appeals, assigning error.

Attorney-General McMullan and John R. Jordan, Jr., Member of Staff, for the State.

Trivette, Holshouser & Mitchell for defendant.

Stacy, C. J.

On the bearing, the ease resolved itself into a disputed issue of fact determinable alone by the jury. Tbe State’s evidence taken in its most favorable light was amply sufficient to survive the demurrer. The defendant’s evidence, if believed, would require an acquittal. The jury accepted the State’s version of the matter. See S. v. Kelly, 227 N.C. 62, 40 S.E. 2d 454.

The exceptions to the charge present no new question of law or one not heretofore considerd in prior decisions. The instruction that the defendant “has a direct interest in your verdict . . . more interest than any other witness,” etc., finds direct support in the case of S. v. Davis, 209 N.C., 242, 183 S.E. 420.

No reversible error having been made to appear, the verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.