
    SLOAN v. STATE.
    (No. 3649.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 25, 1915.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, 1915.)
    1. Intoxicating Liquors <©==>236 — Prohibition Laws — Violation — Sufficiency of Evidence.
    Id a prosecution for violating the prohibition law, evidence held sufficient to sustain a conviction.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Gent. Dig. §§ 300-322; Dee. Dig. <@= 236.]
    2. Criminal Law <@=>147 — Limitation ob’ Prosecution — Computation of Time from Filins of Indictment.
    In a prosecution for violating the prohibition law, a conviction could only be had for an offense committed within two years prior to the filing of the indictment.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 271, 272; Dee. Dig. <@= 147.]
    3. Criminal Law <@=1172 — Appeal and Error-Harmless Error — Mischarge as to Limitation of Prosecution.
    Where, in a prosecution for violating_ the prohibition law, the court erred in authorizing a conviction for the commission of the offense other than within two years prior to the filing; of the indictment, all the evidence nevertheless showing that, if a sale was made at all, it was made within less than two years prior to the return of the indictment, the error was harmless.
    [Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3128, 8154^3157, 3159-3163, 3169; Dec. Dig. <@=>1172.]
    Appeal from Johnson County Court; B. Jay Jackson, Judge.
    Henry Sloan was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    W. B. Featherston, of Cleburne, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   I-IARPER, J.

Appellant was convicted of violating the prohibition law in Johnson county and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in jail for thirty days and a fine of $25.

The evidence is amply sufficient to sustain the verdict, as Warren Clark testifies he purchased a bottle of whisky from him about the 10th day of February, 1914, and paid him 50 cents for it. Appellant introduced evidence tending to show that he was on the county road in Johnson county, working out a fine from February 4, 1914, until March 4, 1914. However, the judgment introduced by him states the judgment of conviction was had on March 10, 1914. In addition to this Warren Clark testified that he knew when appellant went on the road, and he purchased the whisky a little while before he went on the county road.

Appellant insists that the court erred in authorizing a conviction for any period of time two years prior to February 14, 1914, when he should have counted the time within two years prior to the filing of the indictment in this case. Appellant’s contention is correct, and if the evidence suggested that the alleged sale may have been any time prior to two years before the filing of the indictment, his contention would be ground for reversal of the case. But, as the evidence and all the evidence shows that if a sale was made, it was made within-less than two years prior to the return of the indictment, the assignment presents no ground for reversal.

The judgment is affirmed.  