Taylor v. State

• Decision Date: 24 February 1926
• Docket Number: (No. 9642.)
• Citation: 288 S.W. 1080
• Parties: TAYLOR v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 1080

288 S.W. 1080

TAYLOR v. STATE.

(No. 9642.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

February 24, 1926.

Rehearing Withdrawn December 22, 1926.

Appeal from District Court, Cottle County; J. H. Milam, Judge.

Troy Taylor was convicted for unlawfully manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Connie C. Renfro, of Dallas, and Chas. L. Black, of Austin, for appellant.

Sam D. Stinson, State's Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State's Atty., of Tyler, for the State.

LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction in district court of Cottle county for manufacturing intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.

The indictment contained two counts; only the first being submitted to the jury. In same appellant was charged with the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor. This was a sufficient description of the liquor alleged to be manufactured. Frickie v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 254, 45 S. W. 810; Piper v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 485, 110 S. W. 898; Tucker v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 505, 251 S. W. 1090.

An accomplice testified for the state to facts which, if true and believed by the jury, and sufficiently corroborated, justified conviction. The accomplice detailed the movements of himself and appellant, and the fact that they made a quantity of whisky and hid 11 gallons of it in a pasture. This whisky was found by officers. The alleged manufacture, as testified to by the accomplice, was shortly before the officers went to appellant's house. Officer Payne testified that on the date of their visit, October 26th, he and Mr. Patterson went to appellant's house and as they entered same appellant's wife broke up some stuff which ran all over the floor — broke two or three fruit jars. He said same smelled like whisky. They also found among other things, three boxes of fruit, one 50-pound box and two 25-pound boxes; also three 100-pound sacks of sugar. The fruit and sugar were in the garage.

The first three bills of exception in the record complain of the introduction of testimony regarding the above matters. In passing, we observe that it was in testimony that fruit and sugar were common ingredients in making mash for the purpose of making whisky. We have examined and considered each of said bills and are not in accord with the contention that this testimony was inadmissible. Same was competent as showing the presence at appellant's house of a quantity of whisky; also the raw material from which whisky was made. We think same both corroborative of the accomplice and admissible as facts showing by circumstances appellant's guilt. That appellant was not immediately...