Case Name: Jack Johnson v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-04-22
Citations: 100 Tex. Crim. 49
Docket Number: No. 8927
Parties: Jack Johnson v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 100
Pages: 49–50

Head Matter:
Jack Johnson v. The State.
No. 8927.
Delivered April 22, 1925.
Manufacturing Intoxicating Liquor — Evidence Sufficient — Judgment Reformed.
The evidence in this case, being direct, is amply sufficient to support the judgment. Not being in compliance with Art. 865a, the sentence is here reformed to read that defendant shall be confined in the penitentiary for not less than one year, nor more than one year and six months, and as reformed it is affirmed.
Appeal from the District Court of Robertson County. Tried below before the Hon. W. C. Davis, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year and six months in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the ease.
No brief filed by appellant.
Torn Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover G. Morris, Assistant State’s. Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
Conviction is for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor. Punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for one year and six months.
Officers went to the home of defendant and informed him they had a search warrant and wanted to look over the place to see if they could find any whiskey. Defendant ran. After a chase of about a mile he was overtaken and brought back to the house. In the house was found a complete- still, but it had been partially disconnected. However, whiskey was still running out of the coil into a syrup bucket. The liquid in the boiler was hot. Whiskey was in the syrup bucket. About forty gallons of hot mash were found. At one end of the house another barrel of mash was found buried. Nine quart fruit jars full of whiskey were found. Another bottle containing whiskey was warm. After defendant made bond one of the officers had a talk with him and asked him why he ran and defendant told him he thought "they would do away with that stuff. ' ' A special charge upon circumstantial evidence was requested. This subject is fully covered in the court's main charge. In passing-sentence upon defendant the court inadvertently omitted to give him the benefit of the indeterminate sentence law as provided in Art. 865a, C. C. P. The sentence is here reformed to read that defendant shall be confined in the' penitentiary for not less than one year nor more than one year and six months.
As reformed the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.