Case Name: DUNCAN et al. v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1926-01-06
Citations: 284 S.W. 954
Docket Number: No. 9717
Parties: DUNCAN et al. v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 284
Pages: 954–955

Head Matter:
DUNCAN et al. v. STATE.
(No. 9717.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 6, 1926.
Rehearing Denied June 23, 1926.)
Collins & Collins, of Lufkin, for appellants.
Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.

Opinion:
BAKER, J.
The appellants were convicted in the district court of Angelina county of the offense of unlawfully manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and their punishment assessed at one year each in the penitentiary.
The record discloses that Sheriff Watts and about four others arrested the appellants on the night of the 13th of January, 1923, around a large still which was in operation at the time, and another still was found at the same place that was not in operation but was warm, and there was found at said place about 35 gallons of- whisky and several barrels of mash. The witnesses for the state testified to having slipped up near said still and there discovered several persons moving around same, and when they rushed up to said still, one or more persons escaped, and the appellants were there arrested.
It was the contention of the appellants that they had nothing to do with the still, but had been out hog hunting and had just gone to said still prior to their arrest and -had become somewhat intoxicated from the effects of the whisky which they had drunk.
There are no bills of exceptions in the record, and the court properly charged the law on all phases of the ease raised by the testimony, and' without any objections being raised thereto by appellants' counsel. The only question left for this court to consider is the sufficiency of the testimony to sustain the conviction. After a careful examination of the record we are forced to the conclusion that the verdict of the jury was fully justified under the testimony, and that the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed; and it is accordingly so ordered.
PER CURIAM.
The foregoing opinion' of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.