Scharff v. State

• Decision Date: 08 April 1925
• Docket Number: (No. 8838.)
• Citation: 271 S.W. 83
• Parties: SCHARFF et al. v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

271 S.W. 83

SCHARFF et al. v.STATE.

(No. 8838.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 8, 1925.

Appeal from District Court, Grayson County; F. E. Wilcox, Judge.

E. A. Scharff was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, and T. Daniel was convicted of manufacturing liquor, and they appeal.Affirmed.

B. F. Gafford, of Sherman, for appellants.

Tom Garrard, State's Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State's Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant Scharff was adjudged guilty, in the district court of Grayson county, of possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary; appellant Daniel was convicted in said court of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.

The two appellants were found in a room occupied by Daniel, which was a part of the premises belonging to Scharff; the occasion being that of a raid made by officers upon said premises.In Daniel's room was an oil stove, and in another adjoining room was found a still, and in various parts of the adjacent house occupied by Scharff and his family were found considerable quantities of whisky.The men were jointly indicted in an indictment containing two counts—one charging both with the manufacture of liquor, and the other charging both with the possession of such liquor for purposes of sale.Upon their trial the jury rendered a verdict adjudging them guilty as above stated.

In the record appears what is denominated bill of exceptions No. 1 in the case of Scharff, and a similar bill of exceptions No. 1 in the case of Daniel, which bills set forth that the state elected to ask a conviction against Scharff on the second count, and against Daniel under the first count, and said bills proceed to assert that the verdict and judgment against each is contrary to the evidence, which is set out in the bill at some length.The bills appear to be taken to the refusal of a new trial to each appellant upon the ground of insufficient testimony.We regret that we cannot agree with appellants' contention.Both appellants testified on the trial.Daniel was the hired man of Scharff and occupied a little outhouse about 30 steps from the main dwelling.The raid was made by the officers at night, and both appellants were found in the building occupied by Daniel.There was a partition in said outhouse.The first officer who entered testified that in the room where appellants were was a still, and that at the time of his appearing, while the still was disconnected, it was still warm.There were barrels of stuff deemed to be mash also in the outhouse, some of which was also warm.Another state witness testified that the still was first found in a little side room by the one in which the two appellants were found, and that witness said he had moved it into the room where the men were before the advent of the witness above referred to.This witness testified that the still was warm, and the half barrel of mash found was also warm.The officers had a search warrant and went into the residence of appellant Scharff and found 4 gallon jugs of whisky and more in a half gallon fruit jar.When they first found 2 of the gallon jugs, appellant then said that was all there was.Further...