Case Name: DIRDEN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-01-24
Citations: 247 S.W. 870
Docket Number: No. 7328
Parties: DIRDEN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 247
Pages: 870–872

Head Matter:
DIRDEN v. STATE.
(No. 7328.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 24, 1923.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 21, 1923.)
1. intoxicating liquors <&wkey;236(5) — Evidence held sufficient to support conviction for unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor.
In a prosecution for unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor, testimony by th.e officers who made the arrest that they found at the home of the accused apparatus for making whisky and a quantity of whisky, together with other circumstances, was sufficient to support a verdict of guilty.
2. Indictment and information &wkey;>110(31) — intoxicating liquors <&wkey;238(I)— Overruling motion to quash indictment and refusing to instruct a verdict for accused not error.
In a prosecution for unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor, charged to have been done in July, 1921, in which the indictment conformed to the statute as it read at that time, overruling a motion to - quash the indictment •and refusing to instruct a verdict for the accused held not error.
3. Criminal law <&wkey;4l9, 428(10) — Exclusion of testimony as hearsay held correct.
In a prosecution for unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor, in which the accused contended that liquor found on his -premises belonged to H., refusal to permit a witness to testify that H. told the witness that he lived at the accused’s house, on the ground that such evidence was hearsay, was proper.
4. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;226 — Sustaining objection to question whether witness knew by repute where another lived not error.
In a prosecution for unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor, where the accused claimed the liquor belonged to H., who was claimed to live at the accused’s residence, sustaining an objection to a question to a witness as to whether he knew by general repute where H. lived was not error.
5. Criminal law &wkey;>1120(8) — Bill of exceptions held not to disclose error in sustaining objection to question.
On appeal from a conviction for unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor, where a bill of exceptions did not show what objection was made to a question as to whether a witness knew by general repute where a certain person lived, nor what the answer would have been, no error is disclosed in, sustaining the objection.
6. Criminki law <&wkey;l092(l3) — Bill of exceptions not signed nor approved cannot be considered.
On appeal from a conviction for unlawful manufacture of liquor, a bill of exceptions complaining of the argunjent of the prosecuting attorney, not signed nor approved, cannot be considered.
On Motion for Rehearing.
7. Intoxicating liquors &wkey;>236(19)— Evidence held sufficient to support conviction for unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor.
In a prosecution for unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor, evidence held sufficient to support a conviction.
8. Criminal law &wkey;>35l (3) — Flight is evidence of guilt.
Flight has always been considered as evidence of guilt.
Appeal from District Court, San Jacinto County; J. L. Manry, Judge.
Walter Dir den was convicted of unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Fuller & Fuller, of Houston, and M. E. Gates, of Huntsville, for appellant.
R.. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
Conviction is for the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor ; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of one year.
The sheriff and some other witnesses testified to circumstances sufficient to support the verdict. They found at the home of the appellant an apparatus for making whisky and also a quantity of whisky. This testimony was fortified by other circumstances sufficient to support the verdict.
The appellant and his wife both testified. The wife testified that she had never seen the appellant make any whisky or seen any liquor around the place; nor had she seen the apparatus which was identified by the sheriff as having been found upon the premises. On cross-examination, however, she said that she had seen a tub sitting in the yard with some holes cut in it; that she had not been out in the crib for seyeral weeks and had not seen any whisky there. She knew that there were some barrels there, but she learned that one of them contained chops; that her husband had told her that there was some whisky in, the barn; that a man by the name of Holliday lived near by and that he had brought the articles there and wanted to leave them, but that her husband objected to his doing so.
The appellant testified that he had not manufactured any liquor, nor had anything to do with it; that Holliday brought the stuff and placed it there in his barn in the evening before the officers found it the next morning; that Holliday asked permission to do so, but that appellant objected; and that Holliday said he would take it away very soon. Appellant then agreed that it be placed in the barn, upon the condition that it would be removed promptly. Holliday had been gone away for some time, and that the day before the premises were searched, he came back and brought the articles which were described by the sheriff.
The offense was charged to have been commited in July, 1921. The indictment conforms to the provisions of the statute as it read at that time. There was no error in overruling the motion to quash, nor did the court err in declining to instruct a verdict for the accused.
In bill No. 3 complaint is made of the refusal of the court to permit the witness Dolive to testify that he had had a conversation with Chester Holliday; that Holliday had told him that he lived at the appellant's home. The court correctly ruled that this was hearsay. Neither was there error in sustaining objection to the question propounded by the appellant's counsel to the witness Dolive, which question was whether he knew, by general repute, where Holliday lived. This bill does not show what objection was made, nor what the answer would have been. No error is disclosed.
Bill of exceptions No. 5 complains of the argument of the prosecuting attorney. The bill is not signed nor approved, and therefore it cannot be considered.
We find no error in the record.
The judgment is therefore affirmed.
igpsFor otter cases see same topic and KBV -NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes