
    STERRETT v. STATE.
    (No. 7953.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 12, 1924.)
    Criminal law &wkey;>511(4) — Evidence of possession of liquor on accomplice’ testimony unauthorized.
    Conviction of possessing liquor for salq held unauthorized; there being nothing other than accomplice testimony to connect defendant with possessing liquor, save that it and a still in operation were found on his farm, where his wife lived, and where he was only occasionally.
    Appeal from District Court, Henderson County; W. R. Bishop, Judge.
    E. A. Sterrett was convicted of violation of liquor law, and appeals.
    Reversed.
    E. A. Landman, of Athens, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty, both of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Senders on county of possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.

There are a number of questions urged by appellant, in none of which do we perceive any error on the part of the learned trial judge, save in the overruling of the motion for an instructed verdict of not guilty, based on the proposition that the facts were not sufficient to support the judgment.. The testimony seems ample to show that the unlawful manufacture of liquor was being carried on on a farm owned by appellant. His wife lived on the farm, but appellant seems to have spent most of his time in Fort Worth and other places, where he was engaged in the business of contracting. " Two witnesses used by the state, who testified fully to their employment for that purpose, gave evidence to the existence of stills and the manufacture of liquor on the premises. Tile officers found a quantity of liquor and mash and a still in operation in a ravine on appellant’s farm. He was not at homo at the time, and in fact is only shown to have been in the neighborhood at wide intervals. There is nothing, save accomplice testimony, tending to show his personal connection with the illegal manufacture or possession of the liquor, save that it was on his place, and that he was at home occasionally.

Being of opinion that the evidence did not justify the conclusion that he was in possession of the liquor found by the officers when they made their raid, and that there was no testimony, save that of the accomplices showing his connection with it at any other time, ,we are constrained to hold that the judgment of the trial court was not supported by the facts, and that same must be reversed, and it is so ordered. 
      (g^For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     