Case Name: WILLIAMS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1950-01-11
Citations: 227 S.W.2d 224
Docket Number: No. 24584
Parties: WILLIAMS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 227
Pages: 224–226

Head Matter:
WILLIAMS v. STATE.
No. 24584.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 11, 1950.
Rehearing Denied March 15, 1950.
'Ben F. Mooring, Paris, for’ appellant.
George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
WOODLEY, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the County Court of Lamar Cqunty for the offense of -possession of whiskey 'for the purpose of sale in said county, a dry area, and the jury assessed his punishment at a fine of $350, and'thre.e months in jail.
Armed with a- search warrant duly issued on their, affidavit alleging that such place was a place where alcoholic beverages were unlawfully possessed, kept and sold in violation of law, two deputy sheriffs searched a tourist cabin in the City of Paris, and there found and seized several bottles of whiskey.
The officers turned off the lights and -remained inside waiting for the party who had possession of the key to the -cabin to return. Twenty-five or thirty minutes later appellant and a girl arrived, the girl having a key, and after she had attempted to do so and failed, appellant opened the door with the key, and both entered.
Upon observing the officers, both of whom were well known to him, appellant remarked, "This -beats all, a man -can't get out and take a drink without having visitors." Appellant was laughing at the time, and the officers jokingly replied, "What's the -matter Paul, don't you like visitors?" Appellant then said "I bought a half case to sell, but got to drinking, and -had not sold any."
Proof'was made that Lamar County is a dry area.
Appellant complains of the introduction of testimony of the officers and of the introduction of the whiskey -found a-s a result of the -search, his -contention being that the description of the' premises as -contained in the affidavit for the search warrant and in the warrant itself was insufficient. With this contention we do not agree.
The premises to be -searched is described in the affidavit,and in the warrant' as "a certain private dwelling, located in Lamar -County, Texas, -described as a tourist cabin, the same being No. 27 at Lamar Courts in the -City of Paris, Lamar County, Texas." It is shown by the record that the' tourist -court named was generally known to the residents and citizens of the City of Paris, and that there was no other place in Lamar County known as Lamar Courts. It was also -shown that there was only one cabin No. 27 in the tourist camp known as Lamar -Courts.
Appellant's statement to the officers was to the effect that he claimed the- whiskey 'found in the cabin. Bill-s of exception as to the admissibility of such statement were-qualified by the trial judge and -no exception was reserved to such qualification.
As qualified, the bills show that the statement was made by the appellant upon entering the -cabin. Under' the facts as shown by the -record and as reflected in the qualifications of the bill, we hold that t-he statement of appellant was a part o-f the res gestae, and therefore admissible. See Weatherly v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 548, 5 S.W.2d 986; and Waltrip v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 202, 114 S.W.2d 555.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Opinion approved by the Court.