*1 by and authorities cited. As said Judge W., 1009, in Hearne v. Henderson “There was no plea until and a before indictment read guilty appellant pleaded entered.” When the indictment read and thereto have As the evidence should been reintroduced. the matter reintroduce evidence after the indictment failure to had been read was made an issue in the trial court. is reversed and the -cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded. Appeals foregoing has exam- Commission approved Judges Appeals by ined of the Court of Criminal the Court.
Willie Johnson June Rehearing Denied October
294-
The case. states the O'Fielj Beaumont, appellant. D. E. of for for the State. of Judge intoxicating LATTIMORE, transporting for liquor; year punishment, one in the Appellant public carrying package. walking along a a street was suspected whisky. They carrying him and that he was Officers observed him, stopped him, examined and it to took the from same found upon proposi- gallon whisky. a corn defended contain of boy going along a in said street handed the tion that as was question it. The offi- him, not know was in and that did what appellant regard to in cers testified that when whisky. contents, gallon its them it contained a of and that he informed boy that referred took the witness stand and contents him and that he did not know what handed to appear by appellant were. The statement ques- transportation in of gestae res his and be of complaining exception tion, theory. Bills of and admissible under that from the avail when it of are of no admission testimony. gave the accused himself record intoxicating not one proposition is is as to certain The whether expert testimonjL which demands impressed by the fact bill
We are not suspended party given a another who court lectured trying jury panel. hearing The sentence, presence in the appellant penalty offense give fit him the lowest this saw part. any prejudice charged, nothing on their manifests be affirmed. Finding will no error
Affirmed. FOR REHEARING. ON MOTION Presiding arrested offi- MORROW, . The thus summarized: offi- Davis. Their is cers Brown and street walking on the saw him looking cers were for paper carrying bag boy a in his hand. a There was “pretty good” a bag contained, The officers had idea what as to but approached got out, appel- could tell its contents. The officers that, said, said, gallon whisky.” lant and “What Willie?” He “A This statement was made after the had been the offi- cers, had no warrant One of testified: who the arrest. peculiar package, my
“When I him with saw this attracted sus- picion my carrying he was I knew in mind when we package.” what boy a conducted cold-drink stand and the with him appellant’s place gallon said that he a went to the and ordered for a woman. The arrest occurred a from about block place of business. appellant’s testimony is in substance as He travel- follows:
ing “fell on street and in” with a had a *3 boy: “Hey, hand. Two officers the where are you boy?” going going and the were in the same direc- spoke boy, package tion. When the officers he handed the to the appellant, whereupon You, too, car. the said: “Get in the Wil- lie, you.” the chief wants to talk to Officer Brown took the together boy, police and the the station. telling package
denied Brown that the contained and said that contents; when the he did not he did know carry the but was officers the moment the put his hands. felony against
There were other indictments for the testimony There are several bills of the any the officers who made the arrest. The bills are almost void of facts, open recitals showing surrounding the and are to the criticism that they merely objection incorporate show that was made and fail so verify objection. much of the evidence truth the See as State, 559; 409, v. Rep., (2d) Coleman 110 Texas Crim. 10 W. Stan- State, Rep., ford 798, v. 103 Texas Crim. 280 S. and other McKinley State, (2d) However, cases collated in v. 35 W. 148. objection appears bills have been considered. In some of it that the them main, made In bills are addressed was sustained. testimony showing the claim that knowl- of the officers that their edge possession illegally whisky by of the position obtained. That seems untenable. From of the any made, officers it that before arrest of the stated that hand transaction contained analogous State, to that 111 Crim. before the court in Pena v. Texas Rep., 218, Rep., State, In that and Carter v. 113 Texas Crim. connection, may appellant having in his own be added that whisky, position jug he is in no admitting
behalf judgment upon ground a reversal of the to demand came into the case from State, (2d) 2 S. W. 108 Texas Crim. arrest. See Bonillo v. Rep., 307, (2d) 248; 4 S. W. McLaughlin State, v. Rep., 6, 54; (2d) State, Crim. 23 S. W. 114 Texas Mireles Rep., 391, collated; Aggers v. 114 Texas Crim. authorities there precedents (2d) cited. S. W. rehearing is overruled.
The motion
Overruled. Will Loftus v. The State. April 1, *4 states the cáse. Cates, Decatur, A. B. both of
J. Patterson and V. liquor, selling intoxicating HAWKINS, is for ' punishment being years in the two B. Tim- charged appellant having sold to one The indictment with J. capable producing intoxica- “Spirituous, liquor, and malt mins vinous other men went Timmins that he two tion.” * * * him if had get liquor beer. We “some and some tent pint bought a beer. I anything yes, he drink. He said parties got a beer.” and the other town the sheriff reached after Timmins further testified that “liquor” sidewalk. on the broke bottle of after them and that he