Every act of the defendant in respect to the alleged crime, and every circumstance calculated to throw light upon it and aid the jury in coming to a correct conclusion, is competent. S. v. Case, 93 N.C. 545, and cases cited; Mason v. McCormick, 85 N.C. 226; S. v. Lemon, 92 N.C. 790. This disposes of the first exception.
No counsel, for the defendant. ( State v. Eliason, 91 N.C. 564; State v. Case, 93 N.C. 545; State v. McNeill, 75 N.C. 15; State v, Jackson, 82 N.C. 565; In re Brittain, 93 N.C. 587, cited and approved). The facts are stated in the opinion.
The activity of defendant Wells in attempting to embrace a juror through Ray Malpass was obviously relevant to show his consciousness of guilt or his unwillingness to rely on the soundness of his case. See State v. Case, 93 N.C. 545 (1885). See also Commonwealth v. White, 447 Pa. 331, 290 A.2d 246 (1972) and Gassenheimer v. United States, 26 App. D.C. 432 (1906).
Under such circumstances, where an attempt is made to suppress the accusation and permit the accused to escape, it creates another presumption that the liquor is kept for illegal purposes. Lawson on Presumptive Evidence, 356; State v. Crowder, 41 Kan. 101; State v. Case, 93 N.C. 545, 53 Am. R. 471; Fanning v. State, 14 Mo. 386. Plaintiff in error urges in his brief that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury upon the question of unlawful intent.
It is not to be supposed that one who is innocent, and conscious of the fact, will resort to bribery. ( State v. Case, 93 N.C. 545, [53 Am. Rep. 471]; Turpin v. Commonwealth, 140 Ky. 294, [140 Am. St. Rep. 378, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 794, 130 S.W. 1086]; 16 C. J. 556.) [13] It was not necessary that the information should specifically allege that the offense was committed outside of an incorporated city or town.