Case ID: sw_273/html/0848-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GIBSON v. STATE.
    (No. 9208.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 10, 1925.)
    Criminal law &wkey;»742(1) — Credibility of witnesses’ testimony was for jury.
    In liquor prosecution, credibility of witnesses’ testimony was for jury.
    Appeal from District Court, Milam •County'; John Watson, Judge.
    West Gibson was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Henderson, Kidd & Henderson, of Cameron, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

Manufacturing intoxicating liquor is the offense; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

. Upon the premises of the appellant were found a still in operation, and various appurtenances suitable for mating intoxicating liquor, and some of the finished product.

The defense urged is that the whisky was manufactured for medicinal purposes. Upon this issue the appellant introduced his wife, who testified that the appellant was suffering from attacks in his stomach, and that he kept on hand a supply of Black Draught and whisky; that the whisky was being made for his use in connection with the Black Draught for medicinal purposes.

Appellant testified that he was past 70 years of age; that he had lived in the county for many years; that he had been advised by Dr. Hubert, in about 1908 or 1909, to use tea made of Black Draught and' whisky for his stomach trouble, and that he had been using it for that purpose for about 12 or 14 years; that Black Draught was a medicine gotten from the drug stores; that he had never sold any whisky; neither had he manufactured any except for medicinal purposes. Appellant’s theory was supported by the testimony of himself and his wife. The credibility of their testimony was for the jury. See Satterwhite v. State, 6 Tex. App. 609; Ruling Case Law, vol. 28, p. 660, § 245; Hawkins v. State (No. 8599, Tex. Cr. App.) 270 S. W. 1025, not yet [officially] reported.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes