Unless there is proof of this scienter defendant is entitled to the affirmative charge in his favor with hypothesis, requested by him in writing. Johnson v. State, 20 Ala. App. 598, 104 So. 352; Jacobs v. State, 23 Ala. App. 234, 123 So. 285; Ammons v. State, 20 Ala. App. 283, 101 So. 511; Hutcheson v. State, 21 Ala. App. 174, 106 So. 206. A.A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Wm. N. McQueen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Hugh F. Culverhouse, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the petition. If it be held that appellant's motion to exclude the evidence or his request for the affirmative charge should have been granted, then the appellate court should reverse and remand the cause, rather than reverse and render same. Code 1940, Tit. 7, § 810; Wallace v. State, 16 Ala. App. 85, 75 So. 633; Duncan v. State, 25 Ala. App. 197, 143 So. 201; McKinnon v. State, 24 Ala. App. 537, 137 So. 677; Cope v. State, 24 Ala. App. 134, 131 So. 4; Jacobs v. State, 23 Ala. App. 234, 123 So. 285; Fennoy v. City of Hartselle, 23 Ala. App. 294, 124 So. 399; Copeland v. State, 23 Ala. App. 91, 121 So. 445; Lee v. State, 23 Ala. App. 403, 126 So. 183. Thos. F. Seale, Jr., of Livingston, and Jas. S. Coleman, Jr., of Eutaw, opposed.

The mere finding of prohibited liquors on the premises of a citizen is insufficient to sustain a conviction for possession of such liquors. Riddlespur v. State, 34 Ala. App. 431, 40 So.2d 640; Chancellor v. State, 29 Ala. App. 613, 199 So. 749; Jacobs v. State, 23 Ala. App. 234, 123 So. 285. Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., and Robt. P. Bradley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

John T. Batten and Jas. Esdale, both of Birmingham, for appellant. Evidence that liquor was found under the seat of the truck driven by appellant was not sufficient to rebut the presumption of innocence. Wilson v. State, 20 Ala. App. 62, 100 So. 914; Stafford v. State, 23 Ala. App. 556, 129 So. 310; Tuggle Huckabaa v. State, 23 Ala. App. 333, 125 So. 202; Jacobs v. State, 23 Ala. App. 234, 123 So. 285; Clayton v. State, 22 Ala. App. 276, 114 So. 787; Hayes v. State, 22 Ala. App. 264, 114 So. 674; Parsons v. State, 20 Ala. App. 615, 104 So. 556; Matthews v. State, 21 Ala. App. 38; 104 So. 884. Where there is failure of the solicitor to make a statement of complaint and no waiver thereof appears in the record, judgment of conviction will be reversed. Code, 1923, § 3843; Collins v. State, 19 Ala. App. 516, 98 So. 488; Howard v. State, 17 Ala. App. 9, 81 So. 345; Owens v. State, 19 Ala. App. 573, 99 So. 155; Moss v. State, 42 Ala. 546. It is reversible error for the trial judge to make any intimation which tends to prejudice the jury.

Evidence must show some knowledge or connection therewith on the part of the accused. Jacobs v. State, 23 Ala. App. 234, 123 So. 285; Fennoy v. Hartselle, 23 Ala. App. 294, 124 So. 399; Huckabaa v. State, 23 Ala. App. 333, 125 So. 202; Stafford v. State, 23 Ala. App. 556, 129 So. 310; Peebles v. State, 23 Ala. App. 568, 129 So. 308; Clayton v. State, 22 Ala. App. 276, 114 So. 787. Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State.

There is no such evidence in this case. The general charge should have been given for defendant as requested. Hayes v. State, 22 Ala. App. 264, 114 So. 674; Trammell v. Roanoke, 23 Ala. App. 385, 125 So. 795; Ammons v. State, 20 Ala. App. 283; 101 So. 511; Frederick v. State, 20 Ala. App. 336, 102 So. 146; Jacobs v. State, 23 Ala. App. 234, 123 So. 285. The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.