Case Name: WILLIAMS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-01-26
Citations: 227 S.W. 316
Docket Number: No. 6064
Parties: WILLIAMS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 227
Pages: 316–317

Head Matter:
WILLIAMS v. STATE.
(No. 6064.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 26, 1921.)
Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;236( 19) — Evidence Insufficient to show possession of equipment for making liquors.
Evidence held insufficient to show that articles found in defendant’s possession, which could be used in making intoxicating lquors in connection with other articles, were possessed by defendant for the purpose of manufacturing intoxicants for an unlawful purpose.
Appeal from District Court, Kaufman County; Joel R. Bond, Judge.
Young Williams was convicted of an offense, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Wynne & Wynne, of Kaufman, for appellant.
Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, J.
The conviction is for violation of article 1, chapter 78, Acts of the Thirty-Sixth Legislature, Second Called Session, by the possession of equipment for making intoxicating liquors for unlawful purposes.
There was found in the possession of the appellant five gallon cans, some copper pipe, and a barrel containing "mash," made of bran and meal mixed with water, which was in the state of fermentation. There was also evidence that these articles could be used in making intoxicating liquors, but success could not be attained without certain other articles. The appellant testified that the cans and copper coil belonged to Mm, and that they were for the purpose of making whisky, but that his efforts to bring about that result had failed; that the "mash" found was for feeding hogs.
The appellant complained of the court's charge, and requested a special charge, which was designed to direct the attention of- the jury to the fact that it was incumbent upon the state to prove that the possession of the equipment was not for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor for one of the purposes for which, under the law, it might he lawfully made. The main charge, we think, sufficiently embodied the matter referred to. In fact, it is far more specific in tMs respect than is the proof. We observe from the statement of facts that the "CQunty attorney introduces in evidence the following written confession, signed by the defendant, Young Williams." The confession, however, is not in the statement of facts. It possibly supplied the omission, if it was, in fact, introduced. As the record before us appears, however, we think the proof is not made with the requisite degree of certainty that the appellant possessed equipment to manufacture intoxicants for unlawful purposes.
The judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded.
©3»<Tor other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes