¶11. On the trial of one charged with having violated the law by illegally selling intoxicating liquor, proof that the accused received money from another person, accompanied with a request to procure whisky for the latter, and shortly thereafter delivered whisky to such person, puts the onus on the defendant of explaining where, how, and from whom he got the liquor (Grant v. State, 87 Ga. 265); and if the explanation offered by him is supported only by his own statement, the jury, if they believe it to be a mere subterfuge to cover up an illegal sale by himself, are authorized to find him guilty. White v. State, 93 Ga. 47.
¶22. There was no evidence whatever in the record to support the grounds of the motion for a new trial based upon alleged newly discovered evidence.
¶3 Judgment affirmed.