Case ID: tex-crim_112/html/0048-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW, Presiding Judge. MORROW, Presiding Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Friday Fance v. The State.
    No. 12361.
    Delivered January 9, 1929.
    Rehearing denied February 27, 1929.
    The opinion states the case.
    
      McCall & Crawford of Conroe, for appellant.
    ■ A. A. Dawson of Canton, State’s Attorney, for the State. •
   MORROW, Presiding Judge.

— The offense is the unlawful possession of a still for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed by the jury at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of three years.

The judgment and sentence will be reformed so as to condemn the appellant to confinement in the penitentiary for a period of not less than one nor more than three years.

There is an absence of statement of facts and bills of exceptions. No fundamental error or irregularity in the trial is disclosed.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

on motion for rehearing.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

— It was charged in the indictment that the appellant did then and there unlawfully possess and have in his possession a still, mash and equipment for the purpose of manufacturing spirituous, vinous and malt liquors and intoxicating liquor capable of producing intoxication. In that form the offense was submitted to the jury and a general verdict was returned. In preparing the judgment, the offense was described as possessing a still, mash, etc. It also failed to give the appellant the benefit of the indeterminate sentence. The sentence followed the judgment. The sentence and judgment will be reformed and corrected so as to bring them in accord with the charge of the court and the verdict, that is, to condemn the appellant to confinement in the penitentiary for a period of not less than one nor more than three years for the offense of possessing a still, mash and equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor. With such corrections the motion for rehearing is overruled by virtue of Art. 847, C. C. P. 1925. See France v. State, No. 12362, this day decided.

Overruled.