
    RHODES v. STATE.
    (No. 9390.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 4, 1925.)
    1. indictment and information <§=l 10(31) — Indictment, charging possession of equipment and mash for manufacturing liquor in language of statute, held sufficient.
    An indictment, which followed the language of Acts 38th Leg. (1923) 2d Called Sess. c. 2, § 1 (Pen. Code 1925, art. 666), in charging possession of equipment and mash for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, held sufficient.
    2. Intoxicating liquors <$=>236(19) — Evidence held sufficient to warrant conviction for possessing equipment and mash for manufacturing intoxicating liquor.
    Evidence held sufficient to warrant conviction for possessing equipment and mash for manufacturing intoxicating liquor.
    Appeal from District Court, Polk County; J. L. Manry, Judge.
    Dee Rhodes was convicted of having in Ms possession equipment and mash for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Coleman & Lowe, of Woodville, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Green-ville, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Appellant is under conviction for having in his possession equipment and mash for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, the punishment assessed being one year in the penitentiary.

The indictment is attacked upon the ground that it charges no offense against the law. We have been unable to discover any vice in the indictment. It charges the offense in the language of section 1, ch. 22, 2d C. S., 38th Leg. (article 666, P. C. 1925), and is approved in Johnson v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 268, 265 S. W. 588.

We are not in accord with appellant’s contention that the evidence will not support the verdict. The officers found the equipment and mash in an inclosure belonging to appellant with a plain path leading from the still' to appellant’s house and no path leading in any other direction. The officer took appellant with him to where the still was situated. The fire was burning, but the boiler had been pushed off the fire. The mash in the boiler was still sufficiently hot to burn the officer’s hands when he poured the mash out. A barrel appeared to have been recently overturned. "When the officer started to destroy the barrel, appellant asked him not to break up Ms (appellant’s) barrel, and when the officer was about to destroy a tub appellant requested him not to do that, saying the tub belonged to Ms (appellant’s) wife. We have not undertaken to set out all the evidence, but the facts before us leave no question but that the jury was justified in reaching the verdict upon which the judgment of conviction is based.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.  