Appellant was convicted under an indictment charging him with tbe offense of. having and keeping in bis possession an unregistered still, and tbe only contention on this appeal .is that tbe evidence is not sufficient to sustain tbe verdict of conviction.
Tbe officers testified that they found, at appellant’s home, a copper boiler. It was out in tbe yard, by .the side of tbe bouse. They also found there a barrel which had recently contained mash. Witness McMurtry testified that, while be was confined in jail with appellant, tbe latter made a statement to him that be bad concealed a copper stillworm in tbe waters of a small lake near bis home, and that tbe place was marked by a certain cypress tree. Tbe witness testified that, after be got out of jail, be told tbe officers about it, and accompanied them to tbe place, and that they waded out into tbe lake and found tbe stillworm concealed in tbe water at tbe place designated by appellant. Tbe officers also testified that .they found a stillworm in tbe water at tbe place indicated. *1084They testified that they first went to the house and found the boiler, as hereinbefore stated, and then went back, after they received information about the stillworm, and found it. According to the testimony of the officers, there was no lid on the boiler which they found in appellant’s yard. We are of the opinion that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict.
The different parts of the still were not connected up, but each of the essential parts was in possession and control of appellant. The boiler was in his yard, the barrel, which had recently contained mash, was in the barn, and the stillworm was found in the water a short distance from the house. This indicated clearly that appellant had had all of the parts in his possession, and completed the offense. McGarity v. State, 151 Ark. 423. We do not mean to say that the mere ownership of the parts of a still, though widely scattered, would make an offense of possessing a still. What we do hold is that, where all of the parts are in possession and immediate control of a person, ready to be connected up and used, this is sufficient to constitute possessing a still within the méaning of the law. Besides that, even if this did not constitute possession at the time, the fact that all of the necessary parts are in control of a person, and there is evidence that he has been manufacturing whiskey, is sufficient to warrant the inference that he has had possession of the complete still at some time. This may be said also with regard to the absence of the lid do the boiler. Counsel for appellant rely upon the fact that there was no lid to the boiler as a failure to establish the’ offense. The fact that appellant had been using the apparatus at that place, which the evidence tended to establish, is sufficient to warrant the jury in finding that there had been a lid on the boiler, for the reason that the boiled liquid would not vaporize unless the boiler had been closed with a lid.
The issues were submitted to the jury under correct instructions, and the evidence, we think, was sufficient to sustain the verdict.
Affirmed.