¶1 The evidence respecting the reputation of defendant’s garage for selling liquor was hearsay and should have been excluded. S. v. Springs, 184 N. C., 768, 114 S. E., 851; S. v. Mills, 184 N. C., 694, 114 S. E., 314. The identical question was before the Court in the two cases just cited. Further discussion would only call for a repetition of what was said in these cases.
¶2 New trial.