Case Name: ANDREWS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-04-22
Citations: 273 S.W. 568
Docket Number: No. 8684
Parties: ANDREWS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 273
Pages: 568–570

Head Matter:
ANDREWS v. STATE.
(No. 8684.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 22, 1925.
Rehearing Denied June 10, 1925.
Second Motion for Rehearing Denied June 24, 1925.)
1. Criminal'law &wkey;>!09l (I I)— Bills of excep. tions in question and answer form not entitled to consideration. ,
Bills of exceptions in question and answer form are not entitled to consideration under Code Or. Proc. 1911, art. 846.
2. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;233(2)— Evidence of finding of whisky on horse, accompanying team and hack in which accused rode, held admissible as circumstance of guilt.
Pact of finding of whisky on horse, accom--panying team and hack in which accused rode, held admissible as circumstance of guilt, in view of other evidence disclosing accused owned the horse, and that he drove it up to within a short distance of where the whisky was found, and that he and his companions were all traveling together when the whisky was found.
3. Criminal law &wkey;»364(4) — Evidence as to accused’s kicking and breaking bottles containing whisky, done after arrest,-held admissible as being part of res gestae.
In prosecution for transportation, evidence as to accused’s kicking and breaking of bottles containing whisky, done after arrest, held admissible as being part of res gestae.
On Motion for Rehearing.
4. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;>236(4) — Evidence held to show accused and his companions were acting together in transporting intoxicating liquors.
Evidence held to show accused and his companions were acting together in transporting intoxicating liquors.
5. Criminal law <§==*363 — Evidence of finding of whisky on horse, accompanying hack and team in which accused rode, held -properly received as part of res gestae.
Where the hack in which accused was riding with companions contained whisky, evidence of finding of whisky on a horse accompanying the hack, and driven by one of accused’s companions, held properly received as part of res gestae.
6. Criminal law &wkey;>598(2) — Diligence shown to procure absent witness held insufficient.
Diligence shown to procure absent witness held insufficient under Code Or. Proc. 1911, art. 608,
7. Criminal law <&wkey;>595(4) — Refusal to grant continuance on account of absence of witness held not abuse of discretion in view of proposed testimony.
Refusal to grant continuance, based on absence of a.witness, held not an abuse of discretion in violation of Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 608, in view of uncontrolling effect, of character of proposed testimony of such witness.
8. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;236(4, 20) — Circumstances held sufficient to support finding of transportation of suit case containing whisky, and of accused’s conscious participation in such transportation.
Circumstances held sufficient to support finding óf transportation of suit case containing whisky, and of accused’s conscious participation in such transportation.
9. Intoxicating liquors &wkey;>l38 — That accused was criminally connected with transportation at some stage of its progress held sufficient to convict him of unlawful transportation.
That-accused was criminally connected with transportation at soine stage of its progress held sufficient to convict him of unlawful transportation.
Commissioners’ Decision.
Appeal from District Court, Yan Zandt County; Joel R. Bond, Judge.
W. B. Andrews was convicted of unlawfully transporting intoxicating- liquors, and' he 'appeals.
Affirmed.
Wynne & "Wynne, of Wills Point, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
BAKER, J.
Appellant was charged by indictment with unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquors in Yan Zandt county, and convicted in the district court of said county on January 22, 1924, of said offense, and his punishment assessed at one year's confinement in the penitentiary, from which conviction he has appealed to this court for a reversal, upon complaints set out in his bills of exception from 1 to 9, inclusive.
The facts, briefly stated from the record, show that appellant started alone on' horseback from Eustace, in Henderson county, and others on horseback and in a hack from the same place, and all apparently going to the same destination, but before reaching Need-more, in Van Zandt county, appellant overtook the hack and got off the horse he was riding and rode in the hack, and one Burns got out of the hack and rode the horse that appellant was riding along with the hack into Needmore, where they all took lunch, and when they started out to get in the hack a deputy sheriff arrested appellant and found whisky in the hack and on the horse that -he had been riding. Appellant kicked the bottles or jars which contained the whisky got ten out of the hack, and broke them immediately after his arrest.
The first complaint raised is to the refusal of the court to grant him a continuance for the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Andrews and one Hobert Fugate, alleged in said application to be for the purpose of proving by them that the hack had left Eustace before Jhe did, and that he left on horseback. Appellant failed to testify in the case, but the witness Fugate was placed on the witness stand in support of the motion for a new trial, and for the purpose of showing that the court erred in overruling the application for continuance, but the other two witnesses did not appear. The witness Fugate, in his testimony, did not sustain the material allegations in the application, but testified to appellant's overtaking the hack before they had reached Needmore, and getting off his horse and riding in the hack, and to the effect that he did not know where the defendant was that morning prior to that time, and that the horse that the whisky was found on was ridden by appellant, and was owned by him, and that the team, consisting of the horses and the hack that the whisky was found in, was the property of appellant. The uneontradicted evidence shows that appellant did not leave Eustace at the same time that the hack did, and we see no error in overruling this application for continuance, because the fact that the appellant left Eustace by himself and not with the hack would have no material bearing on this case to show that he was not interested in the whisky in •question or owned same.
There are several bills of exceptions in question and answer form, and, under the statutes and the decisions of this court, we are prohibited from considering same. Article 846, C. C. P.
Appellant complains of the action of the court in admitting evidence relative to" finding the whisky on the horse, because it did not show . that he had any connection with it. We cannot agree with this contention, because the evidence discloses that he owned the horse and rode the horse up to within a short distance of where the whisky was found, and that they were all traveling together at the time the whisky was found, and we think it was a circumstance—at least it was admissible—to prove the contention of the state.
Appellant also complains of the action of the court in permitting witnesses to testify to his kicking and breaking the jars or bottles with the whisky in them, and which were taken out of the hack at the time of his arrest, because he was then under arrest. This evidence was clearly admissible on the grounds of res gestas. Roberts v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 269 S. W. 103; Newman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 269 S. W. 87.
There is also complaint upon the part of .appellant to the introduction in evidence of the bottle of whisky taken off the horse, upon the ground that the appellant was not shown to have any connection with it. What we have said above disposes of this contention against the appellant.
We have carefully considered all of the questions raised by the appellant in the case, and we are forced to the conclusion that there is no error shown in the record, and the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.
PER OURXAM. The foregoing opinion of tlje Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and approved by the court.
,i&wkey;>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes