¶1The indictment against defendant charged him with keeping a grog and tippling shop and with retailing liquors without a license.
¶2He was tried and found guilty.
¶3The court condemned him to pay a fine of $350 and costs, and in default of' payment to imprisonment for 12 months in the parish jail.
¶4He appeals.
¶5The first point before us for decision grows out of objection to testimony on the ground that, the state proved only an offer or an attempt to sell intoxicating liquors.
¶6During the trial the accused moved the court to find him not guilty and discharge him from custody, as the proof introduced did not, as he stated, show a sale of intoxicating liquors, nor the keeping of a grog or tippling shop, and that a mere attempt to do either is no offense.
¶7The court overruled the motion.
¶8It was to this ruling that the' bill of exceptions was taken.
¶9The court made the following. part of the bill of exceptions:
“I overrule the objection, because evidence not only shows an offer to sell, but I believe proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an actual sale, and for this reason conviction was entered, and a new trial denied.”
¶10The point at issue is whether the evidence was sufficient to satisfy the trial judge of the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
¶11The issue relates to the verdict, as. to which learned counsel for the accused say there was no testimony sustaining the charge.
¶12But there was evidence, and under the law the trial judge is intrusted with deciding as to whether there was sufficient evidence. He is the judge as to its sufficiency or insufficiency.
¶13Repeatedly this court has decided that in a criminal case it would not consider the evidence of guilt or innocence on appeal. State v. Ware, 43 La. Ann. 401, 8 South. 878.
¶14No jurisdiction to review the facts on appeal, so as to decide as to the correctness or incorrectness of the verdict. State v. Jones, 44 La. Ann. 1121, 11 South. 827.
¶15This was reiterated in State v. Green, 111 La. 89, 91, 35 South. 396; State v. Maloney, *657115 La. 498, 39 South. 539; State v. Hauser, 112 La. 334, 36 South. 396.
¶16Without wishing to depart in the least from the ruling in these decisions, we have -no objection to state that — arguendo, it is urged — under an indictment for keeping a grog and tippling shop without a license, proof of an offense sometimes characterized as “bootlegging” is not admissible.
¶17That point is not before us in legal form.
¶18As just stated, we have no good reason to withhold the statement that liquor selling may be presumed from facts and circumstances.
¶19The offense may be made out by circumstantial evidence, without proof of a direct sale.
¶20That was the point of difference between plaintiff and defendant. While there was no direct evidence, the court found from facts and circumstances, growing out of the possession of liquor and other facts, that there was guilt.
¶21We must decline to interfere with the sentence.
¶22For reasons assigned, sentence and judgment are affirmed.