Case Name: E. D. Berry v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-02-14
Citations: 94 Tex. Crim. 3
Docket Number: No. 7421
Parties: E. D. Berry v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 94
Pages: 3–5

Head Matter:
E. D. Berry v. The State.
No. 7421.
Decided February 14, 1923.
Rehearing Denied March 21, 1923.
1. —Manufacturing Liquor — Indictment—Words and Phrases.
Where, upon trial of unlawfully manufacturing intoxicating liquor, the indictment followed approved precedent, the same was sufficient, and the objection that it did not use the word “unlawfully,” and that the use of the words “directly and indirectly” rendered the same bad was untenable; besides an informal indictment must be attacked in limine. Following Smith v. State, 197 S- W. Rep., 589, and other cases.
2. —Same—Indictment—Percentage of Alcohol.
The point made against the indictment that it contains no averment as to the percentage of alcohol is not tenable. Following Estell v. State, 91 Texas Grim. Rep., 481, 240 S. W. Rep., 913, and other cases.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Tarrant. Tried below before the Honorable George E. Hosey.
Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully manufacturing intoxicating liquor; penalty, two years imprisonment in the.penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
McLean, Scott & Sayers, and W. W. Walcorn, for appellant.
On question of sufficiency of indictment: Woolsey v. State, 14 Texas Crim. App., 507; Morris v. State, 13 id., 72; Ex parte Gilmore, 228 S. W. Rep., 199; Burciago v. State, 228, S. W. Rep., 562.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
Conviction is for the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years.
No bills of exceptions or statement of facts are found. No fundamental error has been pointed out or discovered.
The judgment is affirmed..
Affirmed.