Case Name: Allie Harris v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-06-17
Citations: 101 Tex. Crim. 533
Docket Number: No. 9275
Parties: Allie Harris v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 101
Pages: 533–535

Head Matter:
Allie Harris v. The State.
No. 9275.
Delivered June 17, 1925.
Rehearing Denied October 21, 1925.
1. — Possession of Intoxicating liquor — Requested Charge — Properly Refused.
Where on a trial for possession of intoxicating liquor .for purpose of sale, it was shown that an officer went to appellant’s house, and asked her if a sewing machine belonged to her, and she having answered that it did, the machine was searched, and eight quarts of whisky found in it, a requested in struction to the effect that if the jury had a reasonable doubt that the liquor belonged to some other person to acquit, and also a requested charge defining the meaning of the word “possession,” were properly refused.
2. — Same—Evidence'—Questions of Fact — For the Jury.
We have many times held, and recently, that the fact that the testimony of the accused, or of the near relations of the accused, to facts which if accepted by the jury as true, might rebut the state’s case, made by the finding of appellant in possession of intoxicating liquor, would in no sense or way compel the jury to accept same as true, such conflict being a question for the jury to decide.
OTT KEHEAKIXG.
3. — Same—Evidence—Held Sufficient.
We cannot agree with appellant’s contention on rehearing that the evidence in this case is insufficient to support the verdict. Eight quarts of whisky were found by officers in a sewing machine in appellant’s house. In a nearby closet were other empty jars or1 bottles, and whisky glasses, all of which smelled of whisky. Her claim that the whisky belonged to a negro named Palmer, was before the jury, and was not credited by them. The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Appeal from the District Court of Jefferson County. Tried below before the Hon. Geo. C. O’Brien, .Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for the possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; penalty, one year in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Blain & Jones, for appellant.
Torn Garrard, State’s Attorney, 'and Grover C. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Jefferson County of possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale, and her punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.
Upon information given him as to the fact that appellant had liquor in her,possession and that she kept it in her sewing machine, art officer went to appellant's house. He asked her if that was her machine and received from her the reply that it was. Search of the machine revealed the presence of eight quarts of whiskey. The record contains two bills of exception, one of which complains of the refusal of a special charge asked by appellant to the effect that if the jury found or had a reasonable doubt .of the fact that the liquor found in the possession of the defendant belonged to some other person, they should acquit her. The other refused charge instruct ed the jury as to the meaning of the word "possession." In our judgment the refusal of neither charge presents any reversible error. The whiskey was found in appellant's house and in her sewing machine, which machine was claimed by her as her property at the time the officer found the whiskey.
It is insisted in the .brief filed by appellant's able counsel that her testimony that the whiskey did not belong to her rebuts the presumption of a prima-faeie case and that she is entitled to be acquitted. We regret we cannot agree with this proposition. We have discussed. in several cases recently the fact that testimony of the accused or of the near relatives of the accused, to facts which if accepted as true by the jury, might rebut the State's case made by the finding of appellant in possession of liquor, would in no sense or way compel the jury to accept same as trtie.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.