Case Name: HENDERSON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1926-02-17
Citations: 281 S.W. 557
Docket Number: No. 9745
Parties: HENDERSON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 281
Pages: 557–559

Head Matter:
HENDERSON v. STATE.
(No. 9745.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 17, 1926.
Rehearing Denied March 24, 1926.)
F; M." Scott, of Marshall, for appellant.
'Sam D. ‘Stinson, State’s Atty.", of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.

Opinion:
BERRY, J.
The offense is possession of intoxicating liquor, and the punishment is confinement in the penitentiary for one year.
The appellant filed a plea in the lower court, .asking that .the prosecution be abated. The substance of this'plea was that tÜe county attorney who. was. in-office when the indictment'was. returned had agreed with the appellant that he would dismiss this prosecution in consideration of .appellant giving the officers of Harrison county information concerning other violations of the law. We think this was not such a contract as-is enforceable. -The- record clearly shows that appellant -promised; nothing, aud did nothing, that he was not under obligation as a law-abiding" citizen'to do in'any event. The record- discloses that he merely promised to give information in"-his possession about violations of the law which were not in anywise connected with the offense with -which he was under indictment, Again the record fails to show that any agreement that was made between'him and the county attorney was ratified by the court. Camron v. State, 22 S. W. 682, 32 Ter. Cr. R. 180, 40 .Am. St. Rep. 763.
Complaint is made at the court's action in refusing to permit the appellant to prove by the witness .Hatley and the witness Jackson that Bob Hawkins told them that he had some whisky at his house. Appellant contends that, as the witness Hawkins lived very close to the appellant, and as the liquor in question was found on premises of the appellant, but very near the premises of Hawkins, this testimony was admissible as a circumstance to show that Hawkins, and not the appellant, possessed the whisky. This contention is' without merit. This testimony was hearsay and immaterial. If Hawkins had whisky at his house, we fail to see how this in any manner showed, or tended to show, that appellant did not possess the whisky found on the premises under his control.
The evidence in the case is amply sufficient to support the judgment, and we think it clear that the court did not err in refusing to give appellant's special instruction No. 2 tq the effect that proof , alone of the fact that the liquor in question was found by the officers on premises belonging to and occupied by the defendant is not sufficient to justify a conviction of the defendant, and no presumption of guilt arises from this fact. This charge was on the weight of the testimony, and was properly refused.
The appellant raises here for the first time -the proposition that, as no search warrant was issued for the search of the appellant's premises in this case, the ease should therefore be reversed, as the record discloses that his premises were searched and the liquor found thereon. This ease was' tried on the 26th day of May, 1925, and the present search and seizure law did not become effective until June 18, 1925. This complaint is without merit. Bailey Harrison v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 278. S. W. 430, decided December 23, 1925.
;' Finding no error in the record, the judgment'is in all things affirmed.