
    HALL v. STATE.
    (No. 7899.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 12, 1924.
    Rehearing Denied April 30, 1924.)
    1. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;239(I) — Defendant’s right to manufacture for medicinal purposes held sufficiently submitted.
    In a prosecution for manufacturing liquor, where defendant asserted that he had gone to the still where he was apprehended to obtain medicinal liquor, a charge that the jury could not convict though defendant was present and obtained some of the unlawfully manufactured liquor for medicinal purposes if he did not aid in its manufacture held sufficient submission of defendant’s right to manufacture liquor for medicinal purposes. ,
    2. Intoxicating liquors &wkey;>224 — State not required to prove manufacture not for medicinal purposes.
    In a prosecution for manufacture, the state is not required to prove that defendant’s manufacturing was not for medicinal purposes.
    3. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;239(4) — Instruction on law of criminal intent held not necessary.
    In a prosecution for manufacturing liquor, where defendant asserted that he went to the still where apprehended for the purpose of obtaining medicinal liquor, an instruction on the law of criminal intent held not necessary.
    4. Criminal law &wkey;508(I)— Refusal to permit use of codefendant as witness held not error.
    In a prosecution for manufacturing liquor, refusal to permit defendant to use as a witness a codefendant held not error.
    5. Intoxicating liquors &wkey;>236( 19)— Evidence held to sustain conviction for manufacture.
    Evidence held to sustain conviction for manufacture.
    <§=aFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Appeal from District Court, Upshur County; I. R. Warren, Judge.
    Tim Hall was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Florence & McClelland, of Gilmer, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover 0. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, with an assessed punishment of confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

The officers discovered a still in operation, the business being conducted by three white men and a negro. The officers watched operations for perhaps an hour and a half before .making any arrests. _ During this time they recognized appellant as one of the parties, and saw him pouring water in the cooling keg through which the worm ran. One of the other parties would hand water up to appellant, who poured it into the keg. He was seen to do this two or three times before the officers reached the still. When the presence of the officers became known to appellant he ran away, fell into a ditch, and was apprehended. Appellant denied having any interest in the manufacture of the liquor or of the equipment used therein, and accounted, for his presence at the time of the raid on the ground that he knew where the still was in operation, and was suffering from asthma, and had gone to the still in order to get some whisky to relieve -it. He testified that this was all he had to do with it.

Appellant criticizes the charge of the court for a failure to submit the right of appellant to manufacture intoxicating liquor for medicinal purposes. From an inspection ofi the charge we find that the court in substance did instruct the jury that, although whisky was being manufactured on the occasion in question, and appellant was present knowing the unlawful purpose of those engaged in its manufacture, but did not aid them therein, the jury would acquit appellant, although they might believe he obtained some of the whisky for medicinal or other purposes. This charge presents in a concise way appellant’s defense. It was not incumbent on the state to prove that appellant was not making whisky for medicinal purposes, but upon appellant to produce sufficient evidence to raise at least a reasonable doubt in the jury’s mind! on that point. He denies all connection with the manufacture of the liquor, and asserts only that he was present to secure some of the already made liquor to use as medicine. This issue was submitted. We think the criticism of the charge not well founded.

It is further insisted that the court should have instructed the jury on the “law of criminal intent” relative to the manufacture of the liquor in question. This point was decided adversely to appellant’s contention in the companion case of Baucham v. State (No. 7898) 258 S. W. 184, opinion delivered December 19, 1923.

The court committed no error in declining to permit appellant to use as a witness K/ Baucham, who was a codefendant indicted for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor at the same time and' place. This question was also decided in the Baucham Case, supra. He offered as a witness the appellant in the present case.

We are not in accord with appellant’s contention that the evidence in insufficient to support the conviction.

The judgment is affirmed.  