Case Name: BATTLES v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1927-06-24
Citations: 1 S.W.2d 888
Docket Number: No. 10972
Parties: BATTLES v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 1
Pages: 888–890

Head Matter:
BATTLES v. STATE.
(No. 10972.)
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 24, 1927.
On State’s Motion for Rehearing, Nov. 16, 1927.
On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing, Jan. 11, 1928.
James R. Graham, of Nocona, Jameson & Crawford, of Montague, and Donald & Donald, of Bowie, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., and Robt. M. Dyles, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor is the offense; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.
Appellant resided at a village composed of six or seven dwelling places. Besides his dwelling, he had a store, barn, and gin. In the store he sold cold drinks. The premises were searched. There was a failure to find any intoxicating liquor of any character in any of his buildings, but in the barn there were found some empty bottles, the character of which might have been for beer or might have been for "near beer." In the weeds some distance from the appellant's barn there were found several cases of what the officers called beer and "home brew." These cases of beer were in what was described as. a "big pasture," and were about the same distance from places occupied by others as from the appellant.
There was one witness who testified that some time ago he had bought whisky in the house of the appellant but that he did not buy it from the appellant. The date of the transaction is not given at all. The witness said, however, that the appellant was in the store at the time he bought whisky from another man. The witness did not state that the appellant was cognizant of the transaction; that the whisky was not in the store but that the man went out to some place and got it. *
The evidence adduced by the appellant was. that the place where the alleged contraband liquid was found was not on his premises or on the premises under his control. This comes from others than the appellant, and was not controverted by any direct testimony.
The chief complaint is the refusal of the court to instruct the jury upon the law of circumstantial evidence. This fault in the •charge was properly raised by exceptions duly preserved. State's counsel concedes that the conviction rests upon circumstantial evidence alone, and in this view we concur.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
On State's Motion for Rehearing.
The reversal heretofore ordered was based upon the failure of the court to charge the jury upon the law of circumstantial evidence. It is now made to appear that the court, by a supplemental charge, gave adequate instructions upon that subject.
As grounds for a new trial, appellant claimed that he had discovered new and material evidence. Upon the trial it was shown that the search of the premises was made by A. E. Bridgewater and Capí. G. T. Cooper. The purported newly discovered evidence is the affidavit of Capt. Cooper to the effect that he did not discover any intoxicating liquor upon the premises of the appellant. It was shown in the motion for new trial that, although Cooper was present at the time of the search and testified as a witness on the trial, the appellant had used no diligence to ascertain that the witness would give the testimony embraced in the affidavit. Moreover, Cooper was one of the persons named in the search warrant as having made the affidavit upon which it was issued. The diligence which the law requires is not shown to have been exercised, in ascertaining the facts within the knowledge of the witness. The discretion of the trial court was not, in our judgment, abused. C. C. P. 1925, art. 753, subd. 6; Vernon's Tex. Crim. Stat. 1925, vol. 3, p. 15, notes 25 and 26; Lewis v. State, 82 Tex. Cr. R. 285, 199 S. W. 1091; Jackson v. State, 81 Tex. Cr. R. 597, 196 S. W. 826; Gregory v. State, 105 Tex. Cr. R. 674, 200 S. W. 176; McVerse v. State, 103 Tex. Cr. R. 140, 280 S. W. 583.
The sufficiency of the search warrant (which, by the way, was not introduced in evidence) is attacked upon the ground that it did not sufficiently describe the location of the liquor. The premises where the liquor was located were described as "situated 15 miles north of Nocona, Tex., on the 4-acre tract of land at and near the Rolan gin, in possession of John Battles," and the liquor is described as "intoxicating liquor possessed in violation of law, the kind and quantity of which are unknown to the affiants." In the matter of the description of the premises and the liquor, it is believed that there was a substantial compliance with the constitutional and statutory demands. See Hernandez v. State (No. 10711) 3 S.W.(2d) -, not yet reported; i Wilson v. State, 106 ,Tex. Cr. R. 75, 290 S. W. 1103; Story v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 296 S. W. 296.
Eor the reasons stated, the state's motion for rehearing is granted, the order of reversal is set aside, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Rehearing pending.