We accordingly hold that the application of the prosecuting attorney of Chariton County, Missouri, for the search warrant aforesaid, sufficiently complied with the law and is valid. We likewise hold that the search warrant, under which the sheriff acted, is valid and complied with the requirements of the law. [State v. Halbrook, 279 S.W. 395 and cases cited; State v. Cockrum, 278 S.W. 700; State v. Cobb, 273 S.W. 736; State v. Perry, 267 S.W. l.c. 831.] The above assignment of error is accordingly overruled.
Several cases of alcohol, the same as that found in the house, were also discovered in his car. State v. Gatlin, 267 S.W. 797; State v. Cockrum, 278 S.W. 700; State v. Bennett, 270 S.W. 295; State v. Ayers, 285 S.W. 997. (2) It is largely the province of the trial court to decide how much of a rebuke is necessary to neutralize the danger which may be done by an attorney's statement. The court reprimanded the State's attorney in every instance requested but one and the defense attorneys themselves invited that statement.
(1) The evidence was sufficient to take the case to the jury. State v. Bennett, 270 S.W. 295; State v. Gatlin, 267 S.W. 799; State v. Cardwell, 279 S.W. 99; State v. Cockrum, 278 S.W. 700. (2) The corpus delicti was proven by substantial evidence. Defendant's statements were sufficient to constitute extra-judicial confession, and there was sufficient other evidence to make such confession admissible.
The court followed the latest rulings of the Supreme Court on this subject and committed no error in said ruling. Search [State v. Gooch, 285 S.W. 474; State v. Halbrook, 279 Warrant. S.W. 395; State v. Cockrum, 278 S.W. 700; State v. Cobb, 273 S.W. 736; State v. Perry, 267 S.W. 831.]
Evidence of the guilt of Rass Rhodes was slight; but instructions of the court on this point were exceedingly liberal and weight of evidence was for the consideration of the jury. State v. Howe, 228 S.W. 477; State v. Winkler, 273 S.W. 1043; State v. Cason, 252 S.W. 689; State v. Bennett, 270 S.W. 295; State v. Gatlin, 267 S.W. 797; State v. Cardwell, 279 S.W. 99; State v. Cockrum, 278 S.W. 700. (3) The instructions of the court were proper and particularly fair and liberal toward the defendant. No exceptions were saved to the instructions given by the court, nor was any instruction offered by the defense.
(1) The information properly charges the manufacturing of intoxicating liquor. Sec. 21, Laws 1923, p. 242; State v. Gatlin, 267 S.W. 797; State v. Cockrum, 278 S.W. 700; State v. Alexander, 278 S.W. 709; State v. Wright, 280 S.W. 703; State v. Brown, 304 Mo. 78. (2) Appellant's objections to the admittance and rejection of testimony and to the overruling of the demurrer of defendant, are too general and too vague to merit consideration. Sec. 4079, R.S. 1919; Laws 1925, p. 148; State v. Jackson, 283 Mo. 24; State v. McBrien, 265 Mo. 604; State v. Whitman, 248 S.W. 938. (3) Instruction 12 was entirely proper and in no way invaded the province of the jury.
State v. Elmer, 267 S.W. 934; State v. Smith. 261 S.W. 96; State v. Hurnden, 2 S.W.2d 145; State v. Pinto, 312 Mo. 99; State v. Hazelhorst, 296 S.W. 139. (2) The search warrant issued by the justice of the peace was illegal and void because the evidence shows that the applicant for the search warrant, who swore to the application, had no personal knowledge of the evidence therein set out and there was none introduced before the justice from which he could find proper cause for the search warrant. State v. Locke, 259 S.W. 116; State v. Smith, 262 S.W. 65; State v. Hall, 265 S.W. 843; State v. Miller, 266 S.W. 1024; State v. Shellmen, 267 S.W. 941; State v. Huckhobe, 269 S.W. 691; State v. Cobb, 273 S.W. 736; State v. Cockrum, 278 S.W. 700; State v. Hallbrook, 279 S.W. 395; State v. Gooch, 285 S.W. 474. (3) The court erred in submitting this case to the jury on two counts in the information which charged the defendant with two distinct felonies. The State should have been required to elect upon which count it would proceed to prosecute the defendant, whether requested by the defendant or not. State v. Preslar, 290 S.W. 42; State v. Burrell, 289 Mo. 678; State v. Guye, 299 Mo. 366; State v. Link, 286 S.W. 12.
(1) The search warrant issued by the justice of the peace was illegal and void, because the evidence shows that the applicant for the search warrant who signed and swore to the application had no personal knowledge of the facts therein set out, and there was no evidence introduced before the justice from which he could find probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. State v. Locke, 259 S.W. 116; State v. Smith, 262 S.W. 65; State v. Hall, 265 S.W. 843; State v. Miller, 266 S.W. 1024; State v. Shellman, 267 S.W. 941; State v. Huckhobe, 269 S.W. 691; State v. Cobb, 273 S.W. 736; State v. Cockrum, 278 S.W. 700; State v. Hallbrook, 279 S.W. 395; State v. Gooch, 285 S.W. 474. (2) The instruction requested by the appellant in the nature of a demurrer to the State's evidence should have been given.
Evidence. Let it be said, however, that the facts and circumstances developed by the State at the trial are abundantly sufficient, in every particular, to support the verdict in this case. For rulings to the same effect, based on similar proof, see State v. Nerini, 6 S.W.2d 853; State v. Stough, 2 S.W.2d, supra; State v. Widick, 292 S.W. 52; State v. Dailey, 280 S.W. 1044; State v. Cockrum, 278 S.W. 700; State v. Thogmartin, 270 S.W. 313. We find no prejudicial error in the record.
This court will not interfere with the verdict where there is substantial evidence. State v. Bennett, 270 S.W. 295; State v. Cockrum, 278 S.W. 700; State v. White, 289 S.W. 953; State v. Loftis, 292 S.W. 29. (2) The verdict was within the statute and responsive to the charge in the indictment. BLAIR, J.