Case Name: Dutch Weaver v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-12-05
Citations: 96 Tex. Crim. 506
Docket Number: No. 7937
Parties: Dutch Weaver v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 96
Pages: 506–509

Head Matter:
Dutch Weaver v. The State.
No. 7937.
Decided December 5, 1923.
Rehearing denied February 13, 1924.
1. —Manufacturing Intoxicating Liquor — Charge of Court.
Appellant’s complaint to the court’s charge that it included an instruction to find the accused guilty if he manufactured vinous or malt liquors as well as spirituous liquors, the evidence being that it was whisky, is untenable.
2. —Same—Bill of Exceptions.
Where the testimony set out in the bill of exceptions at which general exceptions were levelled included statements which were admissible, there is no reversible error.
3. —Same—Rehearing—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
This court finds itself unable to agree with the appellant that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction and the motion for new trial must be overruled.
Appeal from the District Court of Denton. Tried below before the Honorable C. R. Rearman. • .
Appeal from a conviction of manufacturing intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Burney Braley, for appellant.
Tom Garrard and Grover C. Morris, Assistants Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Denton County of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one-year in the penitentiary.
There is no brief on file for the appellant. The record contains but two bills of exception, the first of which evidences complaint of the charge of the learned trial court because he included therein an instruction to find the accused guilty if he manufactured "vinous or malt liquors, ' ' as well as spirituous, it being insisted that the only evidence offered in support of the charge was that of the finding of whisky and spirituous liquor. We think the complaint of no consequence. The other bill of exceptions presents a complaint of the introduction of the testimony of witness Miles that he overheard a conversation between a number of parties including appellant at the place where the liquor was in process of manufacture at the time the officers came and found same. The exception appearing in the bill of exceptions is leveled at the testimony as a whole and singles out no part of same. The testimony set out in the bill at which said general exception was leveled includes' statements made by the appellant which were admissible. The exception is too broad and can not be sustained.
No error appearing in the record, an affirmance must be ordered.
Affirmed.