Conviction is for the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of three years.
The indictment contained no averments to the effect that the intoxiсating liquor was not manufactured for one of the purposes permitted by the Constitution and statutes. It was filed in March, 1922. The date of the offense was laid on the 10th of November, 1921, and “anterior to the presentment оf the. indictment.”' The attack on it because of the absence оf the negative averments is deemed unsound. Such averments were required in offenses committed prior to November 15, 1921, at which time the statute was amended. The present indictment would have limited the proof to an offense committed subsequent to that date and prior to the filing of the indictment, but would not have vitiated it. See Plachy v. State, 229 S. W. Rep.,. 979. The so-called Dean Law is not void by its alleged conflict with similar laws enactеd by Congress. Ex parte Gilmore,
After excusing the jurors who were disqualified, therе remained twenty-two in the panel. The trial court committed no errоr in refusing’ to fill the panel preliminary to the exercising of. peremptory challenges. See Speiden v. State, 3 Texas Crim. App. 156; Logan v. State,
Preliminary to the trial, appellant told the court that a number of the veniremen were bеlieved by appellant’s counsel to be members of a secrеt organization known as the Km Klux Ulan; that according to his information, many criminal cases pending in Wood County had been discussed by the members of that organization and speeches had been made in their lodge rоoms insisting upon convictions in criminal cases and that for the reasоns stated he feared that prejudice had been created аgainst him and against his ease, and on that account he requested the court to permit him to inquire of the jurors on their voir dire whether or not they were members of the organization mentioned. The court refused this rеquest, to which action appellant took exception and now presents the matter for review. Ten peremptory challenges are allowed the accused in felony cases less than capital. In Art. 690 of the Code of Crim. Proe., it is said :
“A peremptory challenge is made to a juror without assigning any reason therefor.”
Under the practice in this State, the right to interrogate veniremen on their voir dire is not open to question. This may be done in order to elicit facts that will еnable them to exercise their right of peremptory challengе" in an intelligent manner. This must, of course, within reasonable limits, be determined undеr the facts of the particular case by the trial judge. His discretion in the matter,
*451
however, has limitations, and when abused, will be corrected uрon appeal. Cyc. of Law & Proc., Vol. 24, p. 338, 3rd subdivision of the text, notеs 23 & 24; H. & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Terrell, 69 Texas Reports 650; Barnes v. State,
The facts set forth in the bills of exception, in our opinion, reveal error requiring a reversal of the judgment, which is ordered.
Reversed and remanded.