(Syllabus.)

This being a companion case of Hendrix v. State 82 Okla. Cr. 105, 166 P.2d 785, and the facts in each case being the same, the syllabus in that case is adopted as the syllabus in this case.

1. Searches and Seizures-Intoxicating Liquors-Motion to Suppress Evidence-Test of Validity of Search Warrant. A motion to suppress the evidence is the proper procedure to test the validity of a search warrant.

2. Same-Affidavit and Search Warrant Found not to Be "Blanket Search Warrant." Affidavit and search warrant examined, and found not to be a blanket search warrant under the evidence taken on the motion to suppress.

3. Same-When Private Residence May Be Searched. 37O. S. 1941 § 88 gives the right to search a private residence where "it, or some part of it, is used as a store, shop, hotel, boarding house, or place for storage," or where it is used as a place of Public resort, when proper affidavit is filed.

4. Appeal and Error-Sufficiency of Evidence to Sustain Verdict. The verdict of the jury will not be set aside where the evidence

Page 111

is conflicting and that of the state is sufficient to sustain the same.

Appeal from County Court, Blaine County: J. V. Hostutler, Judge.

Beulah Hendrix was convicted of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and she appeals. Affirmed.

Ted R. Fisher and Allan Falkenstine, both of Watonga, for plaintiff in error.

Randell S. Cobb, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Anna Armstrong, Co. Atty., of Watonga, for defendant in error.

BAREFOOT, J. Defendant, Beulah Hendrix, was charged in the county court with the crime of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, to wit: Approximately 12 gallons of homemade beer, a substance containing more than 3.2 per cent of alcohol measured by weight and capable of being used as a beverage." She was tried, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and to serve a term of 30 days in the county jail, and has appealed.

This is a companion case of that of Hendrix v. State, 82 Okla. Cr. 105, 166 P.2d 785. The same facts and questions of law are here involved. For the purpose of briefing, the cases were consolidated, and the same brief filed by defendant in both cases.

For this reason it becomes unnecessary to discuss either the facts or the law of the case; and for the reasons stated in the case of Hendrix v. State, 82 Okla. Cr. 105, 166 P.2d 785, the judgment and sentence of the county court of Blaine county is affirmed.

JONES, P. J., concurs. DOYLE, J., not participating.

Page 112