The evidence is sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.

The defendant was convicted in that he did "unlawfully keep, maintain, employ and carry on a certain scheme and device for the hazarding of money, said scheme and device being known as and called Cuban Bolita."

Counsel for the defendant filed a motion for a new trial on the general grounds only. The trial court denied the motion and it is on this judgment that the case is here for review.

The evidence shows substantially as follows: Police officer O. C. Strickland testified that he stopped the defendant's car on a street in Savannah; that he found one book of bolita tickets on his person, some of the tickets having been torn out of the book; that the witness unlocked the glove compartment of the defendant's car and found a full book, which was dated for two days later ("two days after I picked him up"). He identified the bolita tickets as being the ones found on the person of the defendant and in the locked glove compartment of the defendant's car.

This case is before this court on the general grounds only. We have set our the evidence which shows the possession of bolita tickets on November 15th, 1956. The evidence as to the possession showed an unsatisfactory explanation as to why the defendant had the tickets.

Counsel for the defendant cites in support of his contentions Arnold v. State, 85 Ga. App. 366 (69 S. E. 2d 615). That case does not aid the defendant. Not only are the facts different, but even if the facts fit the facts in the instant case, the ruling is against the defendant. Flagg v. State, 65 Ga. App. 791, 792 (16 S. E. 2d 516) cited by counsel for the defendant, shows by the facts that the lottery tickets were found on the defendant's person and were properly admitted as evidence against the defendant. The court in that case used the following language: "Articles taken from the person or premises of the accused, tending to establish his guilt of the offense of which he is charged, are admissible in evidence against him." In Goss v. State, 82 Ga. App. 533 (61 S. E. 2d 570) cited by counsel for the defendant, the facts show that the tickets were not found on the defendant's person, and not even in the car, but were found underneath the car. Therefore that case is not authority for reversal of the instant case.

The instant case shows evidence that the game of bolita was operating in Savannah at the time the defendant was arrested with tickets on his person and in the locked glove compartment of his car.

State, 65 Ga. App. 13 (13 S. E. 2d 114); Derricott v. State, 75 Ga. App. 703 (44 S. E. 2d 303), and James v. State, 80 Ga. App. 832 (57 S. E. 2d 629).

When all of the evidence in the instant case is taken together, we find that the verdict of the jury is founded upon more than mere possession of bolita tickets and does not come within the scope of cases which show mere possession and nothing more. The evidence is sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.

The court did not err in denying the motion for new trial on the general grounds only.