Case ID: sw_276/html/0261-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WILSON v. STATE.
    (No. 9212.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 10, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 21, 19251)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;!064(l) — Motion for new trial brings up no question not occurring during trial.
    No question of fact or complaint of procedure, other than those which occur during trial, is presented in motion for new trial.
    2. Criminal law &wkey;>875(4) — Misspelling of words in verdict held not to render verdict unintelligible.
    Verdict of jury in liquor prosecution finding defendant guilty and “ases” Ms punishment at 18 months in the “penatenure” was intelligible. ' "
    On Motion for Rehearing. .
    3. Indictment arid information <&wkey;>l29(l) — Indictment may properly charge in separate counts kindred offenses growing out of same transaction.
    An indictment may properly charge in separate counts kindred offenses growing out of same transaction, and be not subject to charge that it is duplicitous.
    4. Intoxicating liquors <3=»236(19) — Evidence ■ held to sustain conviction for possessing material for manufacture.
    In prosecution for possessing material for manufacture ■ of intoxicating liquors, evidence held to sustain conviction. -
    Appeal from District Court, Denton County ; C. R, Rearman, Judge.
    John Wilson was convicted of possessing material for manufacture of intoxicating liquors, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Robt. H. Hopkins, of Denton, for Appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Denton county qf possessing material for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at 18 months in the penitentiary.

There is but one bill of exceptions in the record which was taken to the overruling of the motion for new trial. No question of fact or complaint of procedure, other than those which occurred during the trial of th'e case, is presented in the motion for new trial. Complaint is made of the misspelling of some words in the verdiot of the jury, but this is not deemed ground for reversal where the words used are of such sound and apparent sense as that the verdict is intelligible. The jury’s statement, that they find the defendant guilty and “ases” his punishment at 18 months in the “penatenure,” is simply a case of misspelling words when from the context it is plain what the jury meant.

The testimony seems sufficient to support the conclusion reached by the jury. " In a search of. appellant’s premises there was found near his house a 50-gallon barrel full of mash, and not far away a half gallon of whisky, and in another part of the premises a still called by the witnesses “an old tub still.” A lot of tracks led from appellant’s house out to where these articles were found.

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

On Motion for Rehearing.

An indictment may properly charge in separate counts kindred offenses growing out of the same transaction, and be not subject to the charge that- same is duplicitous. Collins v. State, 77 Tex. Cr. R. 166, 178 S. W. 345.

On the evidence, appellant’s confession admits that the barrel of mash found on his premises was his, and that it had been “setting” for three days, and that he was figuring on getting a still “to run off the mash. * * * If I could have located the Copeland still, called the company’s outfit, I was going to use it.” The conviction was for the unlawful possession of mash for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor. The facts support the jury’s conclusion.

The motion for rehearing will be overruled. 
      i&wkey;>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes