Case Name: LAMB v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-05-13
Citations: 275 S.W. 1038
Docket Number: No. 9037
Parties: LAMB v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 275
Pages: 1038–1039

Head Matter:
LAMB v. STATE.
(No. 9037.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 13, 1925.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 21, 1925.)
Midkiff & Green, of Gonzales, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover O. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Tbe indictment charged tbat Dudly Sinclair unlawfully manufactured' intoxicating liquor, and tbat defendant, before the commission of tbe offense, advised and encouraged Sinclair to commit it; defendant not being present when it was committed. A conviction of defendant resulted, with punishment fixed at two years in tbe penitentiary.
No complaint is made of tbe charge, and no bills of exception appear in te record1. Tbbe sole question raised on appeal is whether-the evidence sufficiently corroborates Sinclair, whose testimony makes out a complete-case for the state, but must be corroborated as the law requires before a conviction can be upheld. Article 891, O. C. P.
It is settled law tbat, where the state uses as a witness tbe party alleged to be a principal in tbe trial of an offense such as charged in tbe present case, bis testimony must be corroborated, not only as to tbe fact tbat tbe offense was committed by tbe principal (being in this case tbe manufacture of whisky by Sinclair), but also as to tbe fact tbat defendant was brought within tbe purview of tbe statute (article 79, P. 0.) in advising .or encouraging its commission (Hall v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 250, 106 S. W. 379).
Regardless of Sinclair's evidence, the-other testimony establishes conclusively tbat be bad manufactured whisky. A still and considerable quantities of whisky were found by tbe officers on bis premises, and be bad delivered whisky to parties at bis premises-on numbers of occasions. So, without further review of tbe evidence, it may' be said tbat Sinclair was corroborated in bis testimony that be committed tbe offense. Upon, the other feature as to defendant advising and encouraging him in its commission we note tbe following circumstances appear from tbe record: John Goodson testified that be bad-, a still which be wanted to sell, and talked to defendant about it, and made him a price on it; that no trade was closed at the first conversation, but defendant said he thought he could sell it for witness, and would see him later; that he afterwards closed the trade with deféndant, who told witness some negroes would come for the still; that two negroes, Ab McPherson and Jim King, did come after it, telling witness defendant had sent them for it. The negro King testified that he got a still from Mr. Goodson one night, and 'that he and McPherson delivered it to Sinclair. After Sinclair's arrest, Pier-son, his father-in-law, had an interview with defendant, in which Pierson says defendant agreed to pay half the lawyer's fee for Sinclair, but later declined to do this; that defendant said, in talking to Sinclair:
"I sent you the still down there, and I paid you $8 a gallon for your whisky, and sold it for $16, and I think I am done with it. I have done my part."
Defendant admitted sending the negroes to Goodson's after the still and having them take it to Sinclair's place, but claimed he bought it for $25 and sold it for $30. He also admitted sending to Sinclair's for whis-ky a number of times by two negroes, Jim Brooks and Ab McPherson. He identified an order produced by Sinclair for five or six gallons, but disclaimed getting this particular whisky; saying, "Old Ab said he spilled it," going down a hill. He said sometimes he would send an order for the whisky and at other times not.
It was the defendant's claim that he never advised or encouraged Sinclair to make whis-ky, but that at the latter's request defendant sold him the still which he had bought from Goodson, and that such whisky as he procured from Sinclair was bought outright, and was not delivered upon any contract he' had with Sinclair.
Sinclair testified that defendant told him it was easy and perfectly safe to make whis-ky; that he would guarantee it was safe, and would go "fifty-fifty" with witness; that defendant agreed to furnish witness a still and stove for $35, to be paid in whisky at $8 per gallon; that defendant was to take all the whisky witness made at that price; that defendant was to send.the still to witness' house, which he did do, and was to send after the whisky by some negroes, which he also did; that witness had made the whisky, and made some three or four deliveries, amounting to about $75 worth, to .the negroes sent by defendant before the business was interrupted by the officers. Sinclair was getting $8 per gallon, and defendant was supposed to be getting $16 per gallon. Sinclair had no interest in the profits.
We do not undertake to set out all the evidence. Some contradictions occur, as would be expected, but the jury has settled them.
We cannot agree with the contention urged that the evidence fails to furnish sufficient corroboration of Sinclair upon the point that defendant had advised and encouraged the former to manufacture intoxicating liquor. If defendant did this, he would be more than a "seller" of the still, and more than a "purchaser" of the liquor, although he may have been taking all of'the output at a stipulated price.
The judgment is affirmed.