The sole question presented on this appeal is whether or not the defendant’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit, made at the close of the State’s evidence and renewed at the close of all the evidence, should have been allowed.
*268The defendant was tried upon tbe count in the warrant charging him with the possession of nontax-paid liquor. The pertinent parts of G.S. 18-48, read as follows: “It shall be unlawful for any firm, person or corporation to have in his or its possession any alcoholic beverages defined herein upon which the taxes imposed by the laws of Congress of the United States or by the laws of this State, have not been paid and any person convicted of the violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined or imprisoned in the discretion of the Court . . . and the possession of such alcoholic beverages in a container which does not bear either a revenue stamp of the federal government or a stamp of any of the county boards of the State of North Carolina shall constitute prima, facie evidence of the violation of this section.”
His Honor charged the jury that the officers found on the premises of the defendant “six and a half gallons of nontax-paid whiskey in one place and near-by another jar of whiskey and that this was also nontax-paid whiskey, or commonly known as white liquor.”
The State offered no evidence to show that the containers in which the seized liquor was held did not bear a revenue stamp of the federal government or a stamp of any of the county boards of North Carolina, which evidence' would have been sufficient under the statute, to make out a prima facie case; but instead, it simply offered evidence to show that six gallons of liquor and a jar of white liquor were found on the premises of the defendant.
In the light of the evidence and the provisions of the statute, could the court take judicial notice that “white liquor” means “nontax-paid liquor”? We do not think so. S. v. Holbrook, 228 N.C. 582, 46 S.E. (2d) 842, cited by the appellee, is not in point on the question raised on this appeal.
The evidence might have warranted finding the defendant guilty of unlawful possession of liquor and of having it in his possession for the purpose of sale, if such counts had been submitted to the jury, but on the count submitted, in our opinion, the evidence offered is insufficient to support the verdict. Therefore, the defendant’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit was proper, and should have been allowed.