Reub v. State, (No. 7389.)

• Decision Date: 31 January 1923
• Docket Number: (No. 7389.)
• Citation: 247 S.W. 867
• Parties: REUB v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

247 S.W. 867

REUB v. STATE.

(No. 7389.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

January 31, 1923.

Appeal from District Court, Eastland County; Geo. L. Davenport, Judge.

Alex Reub was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.

L. H. Flewellen and Joe W. Strode, both of Ranger, for appellant.

R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Eastland county of the offense of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.

The statement of facts is very short, and evidences the sale of two bottles of choc beer by appellant to the purchaser alleged in the indictment. A witness testified without contradiction that choc beer was intoxicating.

It was in testimony by certain officers that, upon information that there was trouble at appellant's place of business, they went down there and found him very much under the influence of liquor and suffering from injuries received during a fight. They searched further, and with a Yale key found in appellant's pocket they unlocked the door of a small building 15 or 20 feet in the rear of appellant's bakery, and therein found liquor in process of manufacture. We have frequently held that testimony of the manufacture by the accused of intoxicating liquor is admissible and has probative force when the charge against him is the selling of intoxicants. We think the bills of exception presenting appellant's objection to the testimony of what was found by the officers present no reversible error.

Appellant also complains of the introduction of testimony as to what took place between him and said officers when they reached his premises. An examination of the record makes it evident that appellant was not under arrest at the time. The officers asked appellant certain questions when they arrived at his premises, and at the time asked him if he knew anything in regard to the outhouse and hogpen back there, and he said he knew nothing at all. The officers had made no search of the outhouse, and knew nothing of what they would find there, and had made no arrest at all. After they found the contents of the outhouse and the still above mentioned they returned to his room, and then arrested appellant. We do not think the statement of appellant that he knew nothing of the contents of the hogpen and outhouse, made under the circumstances above detailed, was subject to the objection that appellant was under...