Case Name: THOMAS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-03-09
Citations: 230 S.W. 156
Docket Number: No. 6148
Parties: THOMAS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 230
Pages: 156–157

Head Matter:
THOMAS v. STATE.
(No. 6148.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 9, 1921.
Rehearing Granted March 30, 1921.)
1. Criminal law <&wkey;l086( 13) — Record muse show sentence.
Under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 856, the Court of Criminal Appeals is without jurisdiction, where there is no sentence in the record.
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Intoxicating liquors @=>236(19) — State must show equipment was possessed for manufacturing of liquors for unlawful purposes.
In a prosecution for having possession of equipment for manufacturing intoxicating liquors, for unlawful purposes, contrary to Acts 36th Deg. 2d Called Sess. (1919) c. 78, § 1, evidence of the possession of an oil stove, tubs, and barrels containing sour mash, which could be used in making corn whisky in connection with other utensils, would not support a conviction, without evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that it was for the manufacture of intoxicating liquors for unlawful purposes.
Appeal from District Court, Kaufman County; Joel R. Bond, Judge.
James Thomas was convicted of having possession of equipment for manufacturing Intoxicating liquors, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded on rehearing.
Wynne & Wynne, of Kaufman, for appellant.
C. M. Cureton, Atty. Gen., and C. D. Stone, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
Conviction is for violation of the law prohibiting the possession of equipment for manufacturing intoxicating liquors, except for certain named purposes. Punishment is fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.
There is no sentence in the record, in the absence of which this court is without jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case. See article 856, Oode of Criminal Procedure.
The appeal must be dismissed.
On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant was charged with possession of equipment for manufacturing intoxicating liquors for other than the lawful purposes named in the statute. Section 1, c. 78, Acts of the 36 Legislature, 2d Called Session. Appellant introduced no testimony.
There were found upon his premises a two-burner oil stove setting under the edge of the house; two or three tubs setting in the yard; also a 5-gallon keg, each containing what looked like sour mash; and a 30-gallon barrel with some sour mash in it, amount not stated. He also had two buckets of whisky, or what looked like whisky and smelled like whisky, but the size of the buckets is not stated. The articles, according to the testimony, could have been used in making com whisky, but not without the addition of other utensils, such as coil, pipe, and things of that kind.
If the evidence is sufficient to show that the possession of the equipment, within the meaning of the statute, upon which we express no opinion, the record does not contain evidence which would meet the obligation upon the state to show by evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that the equipment possessed was for the manufacture of intoxicating liquors for unlawful purposes.
The court erred in failing to give a special charge requested to this effect. Burciago v. State (No. 6045) 228 S. W. 562; Williams v. State, 227 S. W. 316.
The dismissal heretofore ordered is set aside, and the judgment is now reversed, and the cause remanded.