Case Name: WEAVER v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-12-05
Citations: 258 S.W. 171
Docket Number: No. 7937
Parties: WEAVER v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 258
Pages: 171–172

Head Matter:
WEAVER v. STATE.
(No. 7937.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 5, 1923.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 13, 1924.)
1. Intoxicating liquors @=>134— Instruction to find accused guilty if he manufactured “vinous or malt liquors” held not erroneous.
In a prosecution for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, an instruction to find accused guilty if he manufactured “vinous and malt liquors” as well as spirituous liquors held not erroneous.
2. Criminal law @=>697 — Exception to testimony as a whole cannot be sustained where parts of it are admissible.
Exception complaining of the introduction of the testimony of a certain witness as a whole, where part of such testimony is admissible, is too broad and cannot be sustained.
On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Criminal law @=>552(3) — Where circumstances equally indicate innocence or guilt, defendant entitled to acquittal.
Where the state for conviction relies upon circumstantial evidence if the facts proved are as consistent with the hypothesis of innocence as of guilt, defendant is entitled to acquittal.
4. Intoxicating liquors @=>236(19) — Evidence held to sustain conviction for manufacture.
Evidence held to sustain conviction for manufacturing intoxicating liquor.
Appeal from District Court, Denton County; C. R. Pearman, Judge.
Dutch Weaver was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Burney Braly, of Fort Worth, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., of Midland, and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
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 cannot be sustained.
No error appearing in the record, an af-firmance must be ordered.
@=>For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexe»