Thе offense is selling intoxicating liquor; the punishment, confinemеnt in the penitentiary for one year and one day.
R. J. Smith and his son, E. E. Smith, were special officers under employment by the sheriff of Hutchinson county. Under the terms of their employment they were to aid the officers in detecting violations of the liquor law. They testified, in substance, that they went tо appellant’s home, where R. J. Smith told appellant he desired to purchase a pint of whisky; that apрellant told them to drive some distance from his home аnd wait for him; that in a short time appellant appeared and delivered a pint of whisky to R. J. Smith, for which Smith paid him $3; that in accordance with a previous arrangement, a deputy sheriff and some other officers appeared on the scene and arrested the parties immediately upon the delivery of the whisky to Smith; that all of the parties were placed in jail; that as the witnesses were being released from jail appellаnt returned R. J. Smith’s money to him and asked him to tell his wife to go to the place where he delivered the whisky and destroy it; that they informed the officers as to the whereabouts оf the whisky, and went with him to secure it. A deputy sheriff of the county tеstified to having gone to the place where the whisky wаs sold. He said he made the arrest immediately upon sеeing appellant deliver the whisky to Smith.
Appellant did not testify in his own behalf, but offered his sister who testified that the pаrties came to appellant’s home on the night in question and asked him to take a drink with them, and that appellant drove away from the house with said parties.
The tеrm of court at which appellant was convictеd convened September 22, 1930, and adjourned November 1, 1930. No order extending the time for filing bills of exception is brоught forward. The only bill of exception in the record was filed January 27, 1931, which was eighty-seven days after the day of аdjournment. Article 760, subdivision 5, Code of Criminal Procedure, allоws thirty days after the day of adjournment of court for filing bills of exception, provided the trial term is less than eight weеks. There being no order in the record extending the time, аnd the bill not having been filed within thirty days
*240
after the adjournment of сourt, we are compelled to hold that it was filed too late. Davis v. State,
Under the count of the indictment submittеd to the jury appellant was charged with selling intoxicаting liquor. The verdict of the jury found appellant guilty of the offense of selling intoxicating liquor. The judgment and sentencе recite that appellant has been conviсted of possessing intoxicating liquor for the purposе of sale. The judgment and sentence are reformed in order that it may be shown that appellant has beеn convicted of the offense of selling intoxicating liquor.
As reformed, the judgment is affirmed.
Reformed and affirmed.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.