¶1 (After stating the foregoing facts.) The charge was error, in that it infers as a matter of law that if they found the defendant to be in control of the premises as head of the family, he would as a matter of fact be in control and possession of the whisky, without further instructing the jury that there is a legal presumption that the whisky was in the possession of the defendant, but the presumption is a rebuttable one. See Young v. State, 22 Ga. App. 111 (2).
¶2 When whisky is found on the premises of the defendant which are in his exclusive control and possession as husband and head of the family, the inference arises that the possession is that of the defendant- and is with his knowledge and consent. However, this inference is rebuttable. Gray v. State, 66 Ga. App. 50 (supra). See also Dardarian v. State, 55 Ga. App. 286, Autrey v. State, 18 Ga. App. 13 (2), Morgan v. State, 62 Ga. App. 493, and Thomas v. State, 64 Ga. App. 315 (supra).
¶3 The case, being reversed on the special ground, it is -unnecessary to discuss the general grounds.
¶4 Judgment reversed.