Case Name: WATKINS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-10-14
Citations: 277 S.W. 397
Docket Number: No. 9782
Parties: WATKINS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 277
Pages: 397–398

Head Matter:
WATKINS v. STATE.
(No. 9782.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 14, 1925.
Rehearing Granted Nov. 11, 1925.)
J. D. Todd and Sidney P. Chandler, both of Corpus Christi, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Greenville, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
This is an appeal from a conviction in the criminal district court of Nueces county for the offense of possessing equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor. The punishment was three years in the penitentiary.
There is no statement of facts in the record. Bill of exceptions No. 1, as qualified by the trial court, presents no error. If we decline to accept the qualification attached to the bill, still it is shown that the paraphernalia brought into the courtroom was all introduced in evidence, and this would meet any objection raised in the bill.
Bill of exceptions No. 2 presents appellant's objection to a question asked witness Brandenburg; the proposition being that the question and answer were not in rebuttal of any testimony introduced by the defense. There is nothing in the bill that in anywise apprises this court of the truthfulness and-validity of this objection. In the absence of a showing that in fact the matter'was not in rebuttal, the bill presents nothing for our consideration. • The question has been frequently passed upon.
What has been said above is also true of bill of exceptions No. 3. It is well understood that it is not sufficient to state certain matters as grounds of objection.. The hill must go further and verify such grounds by showing in the bill itself that such grounds were true or in fact existed.
• The fourth bill of exceptions complains of the refusal of peremptory instruction of not guilty, and cannot be considered by us in the absence of the statement of facts.
The motion to require the state to elect came too late; same not being made until after the close of the evidence both for the state and defense, as appears from the allegations of the bill. The indictment charged in separate counts various phases of violations of the liquor law, and for all we know the evidence introduced would have tended to support such different phases, and the state may not have been required to elect. There being no statement of facts before us, we are unable to solve this proposition.
The remaining bills of exception complain of errors in the charge of the court. It appears that the court's charge was corrected in some of the particulars, and, as corrected, is not deemed open to the objections urged.
The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.