
    GENTRY v. STATE.
    (No. 9999.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 10, 1926.)
    Criminal law <&wkey;693 — Trial court was not required to pass on question of suppressing certain testimony, which defendant expected state wouidl offer, before trial began.
    Where defendant, before trial actually began, presented motion to suppress certain testimony which he expected state would offer, trial court was not compelled to pass on such question before it was presented in regular course of trial and therefore did not err in overruling motion.
    Appeal from District Court, Hopkins County; J. M. Melson, Judge.
    Tom Gentry was convicted of possessing a still and equipment for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Ramey & Davidson, of Sulphur Springs, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction in district court of Hopkins county of possessing a still and equipment for manufacturing intoxicating liquor; punishment, one year and six months in the penitentiary.

■ The record is before us without any statement of facts, and but one bill of exceptions appears. It appears therefrom that before the trial actually began and before the announcement of ready on behalf of the. appellant, he presented to the court a motion to suppress certain testimony, which he evidently expected the state would offer. ■ This court has expressly declined to sanction practice such^as this, and has said that trial courts will nof be compelled or required in this jurisdiction to pass on such questions before they are presented in the regular course of the trial.. The learned trial judge did not err in overruling the motion. The indictment is sufficient, and the charge of the court seems to have presented the law of the case.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.  