Case Name: J. H. Hanson v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-10-31
Citations: 96 Tex. Crim. 110
Docket Number: No. 7529
Parties: J. H. Hanson v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 96
Pages: 110–114

Head Matter:
J. H. Hanson v. The State.
No. 7529.
Decided October 31, 1923.
Rehearing denied December 5, 1923.
1. — Manufacturing Intoxicating Liquor — Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of unlawfully manufacturing intoxicating liquor, the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction, there is no reversible error,
2. —Same—Bills of Exception — Practice on Appeal.
Where the hills of exception are in question and answer form, they cannot he considered on appeal. Following Rylee v. State, 236 S. W. Rep., 744.
3. —Same—Requested Charges — Practice on Appeal.
In the absence of any exceptions to the refusal of the requested charges, the same cannot be considered on appeal.
4. —Same—Rehearing—Bill of Exceptions — Question and Answer.
When it becomes necessary to embody in a bill of exceptions the questions and answers, the same must be accompanied by a statement of the trial judge that it is for the purpose of elucidating the facts and questions set forth in the bill of exceptions, etc., and where nothing of that kind appeared the same cannot be considered on appeal.
5. —Same—Charge of Court.
Where the testimony of two witnesses for the State showed that they were present near the place where the whisky was being manufactured, etc., and that when they arrested defendant he made no sort of claim that he had come to the still with a lunch for some other parties, and had no connection with the whisky in question, but told the officers that they had caught him, etc., there was no error in the court’s charge on this phase of the case.
Appeal from the District Court of Stephens. Tried below before the Honorable C. 0. Hamlin.
Appeal from a conviction of manufacturing intoxicating liquor: penalty, three years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
V. L. Shurtleff, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
— From From a conviction for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor with a penalty of three years, this appeal is brought.
The evidence amply supports the proposition that appellant was engaged in the manufacture of intoxicating liquor at the time alleged in the indictment and testified to by the witnesses.
There are but two bills of exception each of which is in question and answer form and the Assistant Attorney General objects to their consideration for this reason. The objection of the State is sustained. Rylee v. State, 90 Texas Crim. Rep., 452, 236 S. W.. Rep., 744.
Appellant asked two special charges which were refused. Neither by a separate bill of exceptions nor by any notation appearing in connection with either of said charges is it made to appear that the action of the trial court in refusing the charges was excepted to. If the refusal was satisfactory to the appellant at the time he can not complain now.
Finding no error in the record, an affirmance will he ordered.
Affirmed.