Case Name: J. D. Wade v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-02-07
Citations: 93 Tex. Crim. 364
Docket Number: No. 7406
Parties: J. D. Wade v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 93
Pages: 364–366

Head Matter:
J. D. Wade v. The State.
No. 7406.
Decided February 7, 1923.
Rehearing Denied March 7, 1923.
1. —Intoxicating Liquor — Possession—Sufficiency of Evidence.
Where, upon trial of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, there is no reversible error.
2. —Bills of .Exception — Question and Answer Form.
Where the bills of exception were in question and answer form, the same will not be considered on appeal. Following Jetty v. State, 90 Tex. CrimRep., 346, 335 S. W. Rep., 889.
3. —Same—Confessions—Fruits of Crime.
Where the confe'ssion led to the discovery of the fruits of the crime, there was no error in admitting the same in evidence. Following Broz v. State, 345 S. W. Rep., 707.
4. —Same—Rehearing—Indictment—Negative Averments.
Where the indictment was under the old form of the law, which contained nep-ative averment, and the use of the words, “on or about,” as applied to the date of the defense, and is not obnoxious to the rules against disjunctive averments, there is no reversible error.
5. —Same—Former Trial — Manufacturer—Possession.
Where appellant contended that the convictions cannot stand because the manufacturer of the liquor, and the possession thereof, embraced but one transaction, and that the appellant having been tried for the manufacture is not amenable to prosecution for the possession; but the record on appeal showed no such conviction or trial, there is no reversible error.
Appeal from the District Court of Wise. Tried below before the Honorable F. O. McKenzie.
Appeal from a conviction of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Oscar H. Calvert, for appellant.
On question of insufficiency of indictment : Smith v. State, 234 S. W. Rep., 893.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
The conviction is for the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.
Without detailing the evidence, it appears quite sufficient to support the verdict.
Two bills of exception are found. Both are in question and answer form. Neither of them sets out sufficient surrounding circumstances upon which to appraise the merits of the points to which they are addressed. See Jetty v. State, 90 Texas Crim. Rep., 346, 235 S. W. Rep., 889; Branch's Ann. Texas Penal Code, Sec. 207.
The officer testified that he went to the premises occupied by the appellant and told him that they wanted to search his premises; that they wanted to know where he had the still, to which he replied that "there is one down there in that barn," - pointing towards the barn. 'Hie officer said: "Well, let us go down and see." Appellant went with him and pointed out the still, together with some whisky and other appurtenances for manufacturing whisky. The point made against the admissibility of this evidence apparently is that its receipt was inhibited under the statute forbidding the proof of the confession under certain circumstances. See Code of Crim. Proc., Art. 810. The statute does not forbid the proof of the confession which leads to the finding of the fruits of the crime or the instruments with which it is committed. See Broz v. State, 93 Texas Crim. Rep., 137, 245 S. W. Rep., 707.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.