Case Name: COPELAND v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-10-11
Citations: 244 S.W. 818
Docket Number: No. 6994
Parties: COPELAND v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 244
Pages: 818–819

Head Matter:
COPELAND v. STATE.
(No. 6994.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 11, 1922.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 8, 1922.)
1. Intoxicating liquors <$=»202— Indictment for manufacture need not allege purpose of sale.
An indictment charging the manufacture of intoxicating liquor is not defective under the Dean Daw (Gen. Daws 37th Deg. First Called Sess. [1921] e. 61 [Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588% et seq.]), for failure to allegg that the manufacture was for the purpose of sale.
2. Criminal law <&wkey;394 — Evidence against defendant secured on land of another without his objection and without search warrant admissible.
Evidence establishing that defendant was operating a still on the land of another which was obtained by entry and search of the land in the absence of defendant is not inadmissible, because the search was conducted without a warrant, where the owner gave the officer information and made no objection to his presence.
On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Criminal law <&wkey;>4l9‘, 420(1) — Intoxicating liquors &wkey;>233(2) — Evidence of illicit liquor machinery found at a place with which accused is connected is admissible.
Evidence that apparatus supposed to be a part of a still used in the manufacture of intoxicating liquor and materials used in such process were found in a place with which the accused, charged with the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, is connected by testimony, is admissible and not subject to objection that it is hearsay, although defendant was not present at the time of the finding.
4. intoxicating liquors 137, 138 — Permission for the possession of intoxicants for personal use does not permit their manufacture and transportation.
Though the Dean Daw (Gen. Daws 37th Deg. First Called Sess. [1921] c. 61 [Vernon’s Ann. Pen, Code Supp. 1922, art. 588% et seq.]), would seem to allow the possession of intoxicating liquor for personal use, the courts are not permitted to construe it as authorizing the manufacture and transportation of such liquors, which is clearly and unmistakably prohibited.
5.Statutes &wkey;>l90 — Courts unauthorized to construe anything into statute unless its meaning is not clear.
Courts are not authorized to construe anything into a statute unless its language is so ambiguous or difficult of construction that its meaning is not clear.
Appeal from District Court, Coryell County; J. R. McClellan, Judge.
George Copeland was convicted for the manufacture of intoxicating liquors, and be appeals.
Affirmed.
T. R. Mears, of Gatesville, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Conviction is for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor with a penalty of two years in the penitentiary. It is urged that the indictment is defective in omitting to allege that the manufacture was for the "purpose of sale." Several special charges based upon the same theory were requested and refused. There was no error in declining to quash the indictment and in refusing the requested instructions. The contention has been decided adversely to appellant in Ex parte Mitchum (Tex. Cr. App.) 237 S. W. 936; Stringer v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 241 S. W. 159; Crowley v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 242 S. W. 472.
The evidence is positive and establishes beyond question that appellant operated a still and manufactured whisky on premises belonging to one S. B. French. Accused had no interest in the land on which the still was located, and had no legal right on the premises save by sufferance of the owner. The sheriff testified that he went to French's place and found part of a dismantled still, some mash in barrels, and where some appeared to have been poured on the ground. Objection to this evidence was made because it was not shown that the officer had a search warrant. Appellant was not at or about the still at the time, and the record fails to show when or where he was arrested. The owner gave the officer information as tp how the still came on his premises, and the record fails to show that he made objection to.the presence of the officer. No error appears in the admission of the testimony complained of. Stringer v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 241 S. W. 159. The evidence overwhelmingly established appellant's guilt, independent of the sheriff's testimony.
The judgment is affirmed.
<&wkey;>For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes