Case Name: CURRY v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1926-01-06
Citations: 278 S.W. 855
Docket Number: No. 9714
Parties: CURRY v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 278
Pages: 855–855

Head Matter:
CURRY v. STATE.
(No. 9714.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 6, 1926.)
Briggs & Davis, of Gilmer, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.

Opinion:
BAKER, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Upshur county of the offense of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor, and his punishment assessed at- five years in the penitentiary.
The only question presented in the record for our consideration is the sufficiency of the testimony to sustain the conviction. The officers, under search warrant, searched the premises in question in the absence of the appellant, and found in the cotton seed house a gallon jug about two-thirds 'full of corn whisky, and in a closet in the house some whisky, the amount of which is not shown, and also found some other utensils consisting of bottles, jugs, and a couple of kegs on said premises. The appellant, as a witness in his own behalf, denied any knowledge of said whisky being on said premises, and explained the presence of the bottles, jugs, and demijohns by showing that he had obtained same from a garage man for cleaning out an old garage, and that the jugs and demijohns had contained wood alcohol, and was so labeled. The record also discloses that the defendant's father and two grown brothers were living on said premises at the time, exercising all the rights and privileges accorded or enjoyed by appellant; besides there were two other grown persons boarding there. The testimony in this case fails to connect the appellant in any way with the possession of the whisky in question to the exclusion of the other parties occupying said premises, and we therefore hold that the evidence in this respect is insufficient to sustain the conviction under the rule announced by this court in Mathis v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 509, 272 S. W. 204, and authorities therein cited. Eor this reason we are of-the opinion that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and remanded, and it is accordingly so ordered.
PER CURIAM.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and approved by the court.