¶1 On Rehearing.
¶2 It is true, Mr. Justice THOMAS, speaking for the Supreme Court in the case of London v. State ex rel. Borom, Deputy Sol., 214 Ala. 673, 108 So. 587 (a proceeding in equity to condemn an auto *493 mobile alleged to have been used in the illegal transportation of prohibited liquors), used this language: “The word ‘liquor,’ as used by the witness and in the context, was authorized to be given by the trial court its generally understood meaning— that it was an intoxicating liquor.” (Italics ours.)
¶3 But we- stand on our original opinion. We, too, strongly suspect that the “liquor” appellant had was intoxicating.
¶4 To sustain the conviction would require a guess, though, on our part; as it must have required one on the part of the trial court (according to the testimony ■shown here in the bill of exceptions) to render the judgment.
¶5 So the application is overruled. Opinion extended.
¶6 PER CURIAM.
¶7 Affirmed on authority of Newton v. State, 234 Ala. 91, 175 So. 563.