¶1 Under C. S., 3379, which is not in conflict with the New Hanover County Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, ch. 418, Public Laws 1935, and therefore not repealed thereby (S. v. Langley, 209 N. C., 178), the possession of more than a gallon of spirituous liquor is prima facie evidence of its possession for the purpose of sale. S. v. Hammond, 188 N. C., 602, 125 S. E., 402; S. v. Bush, 177 N. C., 551, 98 S. E., 281. Hence, the evidence was sufficient to carry the case to the jury and to warrant a conviction. S. v. Ellis, ante, 166.
¶2 The defendant contends that under the Turlington Act, 3 C. S., 3411 (j), the possession of the liquor in question was lawful. S. v. Dowell, 195 N. C., 523, 143 S. E., 133. This statute was expressly rendered inapplicable to New Hanover County by ch. 418, Public Laws 1935.
¶3*170 There was a slight inaccurate statement by the Judge in his charge, hut taken as a whole, the lapsus linguae was neither misleading nor prejudicial. The verdict and judgment will he upheld.
¶4 No error.