Case Name: George Copeland v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-10-11
Citations: 92 Tex. Crim. 554
Docket Number: No. 6994
Parties: George Copeland v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 92
Pages: 554–557

Head Matter:
George Copeland v. The State.
No. 6994.
Decided October 11, 1922.
Rehearing Denied November 8, 1922.
1. —Manufacturing Intoxicating Liquor — Indictment—Purpose of Sale.
There was no error in declining to quash the indictment and in refusing the requested charges because the indictment failed to allege that the manufacture of said liquor was for the purpose of sale. Following Ex parte Mitchum, 91 Texas Crim. Rep., 62, and other cases.
2. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence — Search Warrant.
Where, upon trial of unlawfully manufacturing intoxicating liquor, the evidence sustained the conviction, there was no reversible error, and the objection to the evidence because it was not shown that the officers had a search warrant, is not well taken under the facts in this case.
3. —Same—Rehearing—Statutes Construed — Purpose of Sale.
It will be observed that that portion of Section 1 of the amendment to the Dean law, which is as follows: “Or to possess or receive for the purpose of sale any such liquor herein prohibited,” is set off and separated from the preceding portion of said section which forbids in terms the unlawful manufacture, sale, barter, transportion, etc., of such liquor, and it was not necessary, therefore, that the indictment in the instant case should allege that the manufacture was for the purpose of sale.
4. —Same—Search Warrant.
Where the officer’s testimony was as to what he found at a given place, to-wit, certain apparatus to be part of a still used in the illicit manufacture of liquor in defendant’s absence, would not be subject to the objection that the officer had no search warrant.
5. — Same—Amendment—Statutes Construed — Purpose of Sale.
Appellant’s further contention, that since the amendment to the Dean Law authorizes and allows one to possess liquor, if same he not so possessed for the purpose of sale, that the law should he construed to authorize and allow the manufacture, etc., of such liquor, for any other purpose except that of sale, is not well taken.
Appeal from the District Court of Coryell. Tried below before the Hon. J. R McClellan.
Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully manufacturing intoxicating liquor; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
T. R. Mears, for appellant.
On question of construction of statute: Sparks v. State, 174 S. W. Rep., 351.
B. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
— 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, 91 Texas Crim. Rep., 62, 237 S. W. Rep., 936; Stringer v. State, 92 Texas Crim. Rep., 46, 241 S. W. Rep., 159 Crowley v. State, 92 Texas Crim. Rep., 103, 242 S. W. Rep., 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 to 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, 92 Texas Crim. Rep., 46, 241 S. W. Rep., 159. The evidence overwhelmingly established appellant's guilt independent of the sheriff's testimony.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed,