*1 is an intoxicating alcohol used in liquor; intoxication, other quantity ingredients produce it intoxicating liquor. under our law is an When the case, question is submitted as in this in addition evidence, jury right affirmative had the to take judicial notice of the fact that alcohol is an intoxicant.” State,

In supra, the case Snider it is held spirituous intoxicating liquor alcohol is a and that not necessary for the State to prove that it was intoxicating, because it is a fact every known to person understanding common and will be judicial taken of. cognizance Kollar,

In the case of supra, State v. the court said: judicial take “Courts notice that alcohol is an intoxicat- ing liquor. It forms the basic principle ... of all liquors ... it is a constituent element each of said liquors. may Pure alcohol easily diluted so as to be capable being freely used as a beverage.”

There is no error the record and judgment affirmed.

Seeger Indiana. 25,487. Rehearing January [No. Filed November denied 31, 1930.] *2 Hardy, appellant. D. for

William Gilliom, Attorney-General, L. Harry Arthur L. Gause, Deputy Attorney-General, for the State. Appellant was convicted, after

Martin, trial J. him upon charged affidavit which possessing operating a distilling apparatus for the unlawful liquor, manufacture intoxicating in violation 48, §6, Acts ch. Burns 1926. He fined Reformatory sentenced the Indiana $100 for not years. less than nor more than one five alleged upon overruling ap- error relied is the pellant’s motion for a new alleged wherein finding the court is not sustained sufficient evi- law, is contrary dence arid and that the court erred admitting in testimony evidence and exhibits of what search, warrant, was found of ap- under a search pellant’s premises.

The State contends that no alleged presented, error is reason bill of pre- was not exceptions sented the trial granted court within the time therefor. *3 1927, 4, The record shows on June over- ruling appellant’s of motion for a prayed new he asked, áppeal, granted, days’ and was time within prepare which to file all exception, pro- and bills of as entry vided in Burns 1926. ap- The order-book record, pearing etc., in the showing of presentation, 1927, exceptions, 21, the bill of was made on June and reads as follows: now presents

“Comes the defendant and to the judge exception his bill of requests herein and by be approved signed judge same and said and part filed herein and made a cause. And of the record in this judge approves signs said said now and exceptions bill of after and the same been signed had by judge said filed and part is now herein made a by of in the record this cause. It is further ordered entry pro the court that this be recorded nunc tunc 18, as of June 1927.”

The judge’s of exceptions certificate to the bill is as follows: afterwards, on That

“Be it further remembered June, 1927, time and within the day of 18th. therefor, the by the court defen- fixed and allowed P. tendered to the said Charles presented dant Bock, and Court, Vanderburgh Judge of said Circuit Indiana, this, of County, his bill Vanderburgh of exceptions, signature, and approval for his signed, sealed and made might that same prayed cause, said bill a in and which part of the record said this, on the said 18th exceptions was now here allowed, June, 1927, signed, day approved, Bock, by Judge, P. as such and ordered said Charles pro- of the record part be and constitute court and the Clerk said ceedings of said part as a hereby to file the same ordered is record cause entitled proceedings said above of action. whereof, my I hereunto set hand

“In have witness June, day of 1927.” 18th. is dated June And the file mark on the certificate power, an act true that a trial court has no It is pro tunc, judicial act which the perform nunc done before, appellee as con- requires be done law tends, App. 43 Ind. (1909), Holcomb Norman 1057, but, a conflict E. there is where dates, excep- of a bill of relating presentation to the controlling. tions, judge certified to the trial the date E. 223. Robinson v. State N. therefore, exceptions, appears to have been The bill timely presented. controverted, evidence, amply is not which deputy It shows that a finding. to sustain the *4 warrant,

¡sheriff, searched acting under a search following of barn and found the items appellant’s appellant belonged admitted property, which exhibits; him, in evidence as and which were introduced distilling of 125-gallon still, the double complete for mash; of liquor; barrels full corn 194 gallons corn of liquor, which tested intoxicating of alcohol “108-54%” outside walls of the by volume. The barn covered were paper, making inside, still, it dark with black and the and which was boarded roofed and surrounded on the top straw, up operation, and was set sides was mash, full of and had two four-burner coal oil stoves it. under

Appellant deputy contends the evidence the he sheriff as to what found virtue the search war- the exhibits erroneously rant and introduced were ad- objections mitted over his made at the for the reason that search warrant was invalid (a) because it probable was not issued upon cause supported by oath affirmation, (b) or because description contained premises sought therein searched in- sufficient. upon

The affidavit which this search warrant was is- was, part, sued as follows: undersigned affiant, who,

“Comes now the upon says: liquor his oath That intoxicating possessed, sold and manufactured . . . and that a still pos- operated sessed on premises, said that because. above fact he has reasonable cause to believe Doe, does believe that John whose lawful name affiant, is unknown to possession has in his intoxi- cating liquor; and . possession stills, has his . . implements, devices and property kept for the manu- facturing . intoxicating liquor . following . at the premises,” etc.

The facts stated in this directly affidavit and positively charge possession of a of intoxicating liquor, still and

and are sufficient to support judicial finding of probable warrant, cause to issue the search inquire this court will not as to knowledge what the affiant had which he based his sworn statement. Seager Ind. E. 274.. (1928),

474 issuing may warrant be shown cause for search

Probable allegation of facts issuing by positive magistrate the State, supra; affidavit, v. State Seager v. Goodman in the 755; 189, Thompson E. v. State ante (1929), 547, 23, by as as Ind. 166 N. E. well (1929), App. 89 magistrate, testimony the v. sworn oral before Gwinn 769; 420, E. Becker State (1929), ante 166 v. N. 27; 397, Shepherd E. Ind. 164 v. State (1928), 200 N. 276; Feast 405, 164 Ind. E. (1928), 200 N. . 457, 164 E. 314 N. in the description The contained affidavit for the search in the search warrant as warrant and follows: story building (resi "A one and one-half frame buildings buildings appur and all and out dence) thereto, following situated on the described tenant part all of the real estate towit: that ESEJ4 Range 11 lies Town W* which south Sec. the Evansville road, except 8.8 Mount Vernon thereof, the acres or less west side and all that more off T6S, R11E,* S33, part of the described as NW%> lengthy description (here follows: metes and follows bounds*) Perry Township in Vander burgh County, Indiana.” description is not appellant contends requirement §11, of Art. Con to meet the

stitution, Burns Burns §2085 search warrant shall (that particularly of the searched), be because place describe first description above in the words underscored land, a certain tract being claim where parcel his fully excepted should as "excepted,” part if in a deed. accurately being granted as described it were State, Seager supra, and question A arose in similar there, to a here, description points as we hold that space. made conserve omissions have been *Abbreviations own. Italics our definitely place acertainable so as to exclude all others and meets the requirements of a description. valid requested

The appellant but, has argument, oral his length, since case briefed at and since the facts are disputed,

not and all questions law in- are volved well settled recently cases decided *6 nothing gained by argu- could be ment, and the same is Allgaier denied. 315;

200 Ind. E.N. Chandsie v. State (1928), N. E. Judgment affirmed. J.,

Willoughby, dissents the reason that the affi- davit and do place search warrant not describe the sought be searched with certainty required by §11, 1 of the Art. Constitution of Indiana.

Eshelman Indiana. 25,832. February Filed [No. 1930.]