Case ID: tex-crim_100/html/0348-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, Judge. —", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hugh Johnson v. The State.
    No. 9174.
    Delivered June 3, 1925.
    Manufacturing Intoxicating Liquor — Evidence Held Sufficient.
    No complaints to the admission or rejection of evidence, and no objections to the charge of the court appear in the record. All special charges requested by appellant were given. An examination of the evidence shows it to have been ample to support the judgment and the cause is affirmed.
    Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Tarrant County. Tried below before the Hon. Geo. E. Hosey, Judge.
    Appeal from a conviction of manufacturing intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    No brief filed by appellant.
    
      Tom Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover C. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, Judge. —

Appellant was convicted in the Criminal District Court of Tarrant County of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.

The case was one dependent on circumstantial evidence, and the charge of the court upon this phase of the law seems sufficient. Appellant requested five special charges which were given.

We have carefully examined the facts and are of opinion that they are sufficient to support the judgment. Appellant rented a house west of Fort Worth. Officers raided it on the occasion in question and had some difficulty in effecting an entrance. When they got inside they found a still giving every evidence of its being operated almost to the time of entry. Whiskey was dripping from the boiler from which the worm had apparently just been disconnected. Broken containers were in the bath room which were . pervaded by strong odor of whiskey. Appellant was in the house.

He claimed that he had sub-let cpart of his house to another man and that if whiskey was being manufactured, the other man was the guilty party. These were questions for the jury and they have solved them against appellant.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.