
    DAMERON v. STATE.
    (No. 8210.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 26, 1924.
    Rehearing Denied April 16, 1924.)
    I. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;233’(2) — In prosecution for selling, evidence of prior possession of liquor paraphernalia held proper.
    In a prosecution for selling intoxicating liquor,, admission of testimony of finding certain barrels of mash, a' still, and a quantity of whisky on premises occupied by accused and another some time before the date of the alleged sale held, admissible as shedding light on the fact of sale, accused having denied the sale and any connection with the liquor paraphernalia found on the premises.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;>IQ9l(4) — Bill of exceptions held insufficient in not setting out facts to show error complained of.
    In' a prosecution for selling intoxicating liquor, bill of exceptions complaining of the refusal of accused’s motion to exclude evidence as to the finding of whisky paraphernalia on the premises occupied by him was insufficient in that it did not set out the facts from which the court might infer or be shown the error complained of.
    3. Criminal law <&wkey;507(l) — Witnesses who purchased liquor and transported it held not accomplice witnesses in prosecution for selling.
    The statute expressly excludes from the character of accomplice witnesses the transporter as well as the purchasers of intoxicating liquor, and hence witnesses who purchased liquor from accused and transported it were not accomplice witnesses in prosecution for selling.
    4. Criminal law <&wkey;!091(ll) — Bill of exceptions in question and answer form held not entitled to consideration.
    A bill of exceptions in question and answer form held not entitled to consideration on appeal in view of previous decisions to that effect and Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 846.
    ^s»For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Appeal from District Court, Hill County; Horton B. Porter, Judge.
    H. E. Dameron was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Price & Miller, of Waco, and J. D. Burns, of Hillsboro, 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 Hill county of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.

There was no error in refusing appellant’s motion for an instructed verdict in his favor.

Complaint is made of the admission of the testimony of the finding of certain barrels of mash, a still, and a quantity of whisky, on the premises occupied by appellant and another person some little time before the date of the alleged sale. We think it permissible as shedding light upon the probable fact of a sale by the accused to show him engaged in the manufacture of liquor prior to the date of the alleged sale and within a reasonable time before. One engaged in the manufacture of liquor would seem to do so either for personal use or for profit. Appellant denied making the sale testified to by the two young men who say they bought it from him, and also denied any connection with the mash, keg, still, etc., found on the premises. We think the testimony of the finding of the materials and apparatus used in manufacturing liquor admissible to shed light- on the fact of the sale under the circumstances shown in this record. The bill of exceptions complaining of the refusal of -appellant’s motion to exclude the evidence with regard to the finding of the paraphernalia mentioned would be held insufficient in 'that it does not set out the facts from which this< court might infer or he shown the error complained of.

The questión of the insufficiency of the evidence based on the proposition that t;he purchasers of the liquor in question are asserted to be accomplices is directly in the face of the statute, and the contention is not sound. Neither is the proposition that because they transported from the place where same was purchased the liquor in question they thereby became accomplices. The statute expressly excludes from the character of accomplice witnesses the transporter as well as the purchasers of intoxicating liquor.

The last bill of exceptions in the record is in question and answer form, and under the uniform holding of this court, as well as the terms of our statute (article 846, C. C. P.), cannot be considered by us because, of such fact.

The evidence for the state is plain, and sufficiently establishes the fact of the sale in question.

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