Case ID: sw2d_55/html/0837-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      BATTIMORE, J. MORROW, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HINTON v. STATE.
    No. 15432.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 7, 1932.
    Rehearing Withdrawn Jan. 11, 1933.
    Keeney & Moseley, of Texarkana, for appellant.
    - Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   BATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for transporting intoxicating liquor; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.

There are two complaints; one of the reception of testimony of the officers who followed appellant several blocks, overtook him, searched his car, and found ten gallons of whisky. We note that appellant took the witness stand in his own behalf and swore that the officers found the whisky in the car. This testimony in the record without objection renders of no avail appellant’s complaint that the officers searched his ear without warrant and without probable cause. As decisive we cite Reusch v. State, 119 Tex. Cr. R. 112, 45 S.W.(2d) 209, and the authorities therein cited. Both appellant and the officers testified to the driving of the car before it was searched. The other complaint was of the refusal of the court to charge on circumstantial evidence. The facts are such as to establish this as a case of direct testimony.

No error appearing, the judgment will be . affirmed.

On Rehearing.

MORROW, P. J.

Since the affirmance of the case and the filing of the motion for rehearing, appellant has filed his written request, duly verified, asking that said motion be withdrawn.

The request is granted, the motion for rehearing will be withdrawn, and the mandate issued at once.