Case Name: GLASS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-04-15
Citations: 272 S.W. 180
Docket Number: No. 8810
Parties: GLASS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 272
Pages: 180–181

Head Matter:
GLASS v. STATE.
(No. 8810.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 15, 1925.
Rehearing Denied May 20, 1925.)
1. Indictment and information c&wkey;>l76 — Evidence admissible to show offense at any time prior to indictment.
Under indictment alleging manufacture of liquor on about specified date, evidence is admissible to show that accused committed offense at any time prior to the indictment.
2. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;233(l) — Evidence of purchase of large quantity of sugar properly admitted.
In prosecution for manufacture of intoxicating liquor, evidence that accused was buying sugar in large quantities was properly admitted; sugar being one of ingredients used in manufacture.
3. Intoxicating liquors &wkey;>233(2) — Evidence of possession of quantity of fruit jars proper.
In prosecution for manufacture of intoxicating liquor, evidence ds to possession of quantity of fruit jars was properly received.
4. Indictment and information &wkey;>176 — All testimony leading to conclusion of crime prior to filing indictment admissible.
Where prosecution for manufacture of intoxicating liquor relied on circumstantial v evidence, any competent testimony leading to conclusion that accused was engaged in manufacture prior to time of filing indictment and with-ip. period of limitation was proper.
5. Intoxicating liquors &wkey;>236(!9) — Evidence sufficient to support conviction.
In prosecution for manufacture of intoxicating liquor, evidence, though circumstantial, held sufficient to sustain conviction.
Appeal from District Court, Bosque County ; Irwin T. Ward, Judge.
Lawrence Glass was convicted of unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquors, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Levi Herring, of Fairfield, and J. P. Word, of Meridian, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor is the .offense; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years.
The evidence is circumstantial. The testimony relied upon by the state is in substance this: In April or May of the year 1923, the witness Mayfield saw a still situated in Somervell county. The still was a large one. It was in operation, and whisky was running out of it at the time. There were a number of barrels of mash nearby. The still was located in a creek about a quarter of a mile from the appellant's home. At the time that the witness observed it, the appellant was sitting on the bank of the creek about 10 yards from the still and eating his lunch. The appellant's brother was also there. A ranger also saw the still in operation and the appellant eating his dinner nearby. This witness also saw a still in the same locality in August. In the month ot September this witness found several cases of fruit jars at the house of the appellant, but no fruit.
The indictment was filed on the 3d day of .September, 1923. It charged the offense to have been committed on or about the first day of February, 1923. It was in evidence that some time prior to the 29th day of August, 1923, the appellant had purchased from one witness about 300 pounds of sugar. Accord-' ing to the best recollection of the witness, two of these sacks of sugar were sold to the appellant in May; the other was sold at a later date. Another witness testified that he sold 200 or 300 pounds of sugar to the appellant' in the middle of August; that he also sold him three cases of fruit jars.
The testimony introduced by the appellant concerned his age and his good reputation as a law-abiding citizen. It seems that in connection with that issue testimony was received without objection to the effect that he bore the reputation of pursuing the occupation of a whisky dealer.
The averment in the indictment that the transaction occurred on or about the first day of February, 1923, would render admissible evidence going to show that the appellant had committed the offense at any time prior to the filing of the indictment on September 3, 1923.
The request for an instruction seeking to eliminate from the consideration of the jury the testimony relating to the purchase of the sugar in August was properly refused. The same is true with reference to the receipt of evidence that there was a still in the same locality in August and that the appellant'was buying sugar in large quantities at that time; the sugar being one of the ingredients used in the manufacture of liquor. Evidence as to the possession of a quantity of fruit jars was also properly received.
Reliance being had by the state upon circumstantial evidence, the way was open to the state to introduce competent testimony which would shed light upon the transaction. All the testimony leading to the conclusion that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of whisky at a time before the 3d of September, 1923, and within the period of limitation,' was relevant upon the issue before the' court.
The point is made that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. Summarizing the criminative evidence, there was found a well-equipped still, with a number of barrels of mash sunk in the ground. The still was situated in the bed of a creek, the locality surrounded by brush and situated at a distance estimated at a quarter of a mile from the home of the appellant. The still was in operation, a fire was under the boiler, and whisky was running out of the condenser. Appellant and his brother were present. The appellant was dining and, so far as the record shows, he made no explanation of his presence or his conduct. A still of a similar nature and used for a like purpose was seen in the same locality at a later date. Appellant was a purchaser of sugar in quantities which the jury was authorized to conclude were unusual and such as to indicate that it was not for domestic purposes. He was also the purchaser of fruit jars which were suitable containers for whisky and commonly used for that purpose by persons engaged in •the illicit manufacture of intoxicating li<J-uors. These items of evidence unexplained, and the record presenting no hypothesis other than that which might be inferred .from the evidence stated, we are not prepared to say that, tested by the law of circumstantial evidence, the verdict of the jury, to the effect that the presumption of innocence was overcome and the appellant's guilt of manufacturing liquor established beyond a reasonable doubt, was unsupported. The learned trial judge dfeemed the facts of sufficient cogency to go to the jury, and approved and entered judgment upon the verdict. While the evidence might be more convincing, this court, in view of the conditions mentioned and the additional fact that it was proved without objection that the appellant bore the reputation of a dealer in whisky, we do not feel authorized to overturn the verdict.
The judgment is affirmed.
<5&wkey;For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in. all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes