
    ETHEREDGE v. STATE.
    (No. 10668.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 23, 1927.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 12, 1927.
    Intoxicating liquors <§=^236(13)— Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction for unlawfully selling malt liquors containing in excess of I per cent, alcohol by volume (Pen. Code 1925, art. 667).
    In prosecution under Pen. Code 1925, art. 667, for unlawfully selling malt liquors containing in excess of 1 per cent, of alcohol by volume, evidence held sufficient to identify bottle taken from defendant and analyzed by chemist and to sustain conviction.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Williamson, County; Cooper Sansom, Judge.
    J. B. Etheredge was convicted of unlawfully selling malt liquors containing in excess of 1 per cent, alcohol by volume, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    W. C. Wofford, of Taylor, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   BAKER, J.

The appellant was convicted of unlawfully selling malt liquors containing in excess of 1 per cent, alcohol by volume, and his punishment assessed at one year in the penitentiary.

There are no bills of exception in the record, and the only question raised is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. .The record discloses that the appellant sold to the state’s witnesses Lawson and Taylor about 6 bottles filled with what the state contended was malt liquor, and that said witnesses immediately delivered these bottles to W. P. McConnell, a constable, who then delivered all or most of said bottles to Sheriff Lowe, who,- in turn, delivered one of the bottles to Dr. J. C. Godbey, a chemist. The witness Godbey testified that he analyzed the contents of the bottle delivered to him, and that said bottle was filled with malt liquor which contained 11.70 per cent, alcohol. The appellant introduced no testimony, but relied for an acquittal upon the insufficiency of the state’s testimony, and insists that the testimony introduced by the state fails to show that the bottle concerning which the witness Godbey testified was one of the bottles alleged to have been sold by appellant to the witnesses Lawson and Taylor. After a careful examination of all the testimony adduced upon the trial, we are not in accord with this contention and are of the opinion that the state’s evidence clearly shows' that the liquid analyzed by the witness Godbey came from one of the six bottles sold by appellant to the state’s witnesses Lawson and Taylor. We think, fur-, ther, that the evidence of the state is amply sufficient to warrant the verdict of the jury herein.

The appellant cites Henson v. State, 103 Tex. Or. R. 123, 280 S. W. 592, as authority for the proposition that the facts in the instant case are insufficient to support the verdict of the jury. In the Henson Case the appellant was charged with possessing for sale spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors containing in excess of 1 per cent, alcohol by volume, while the evidence developed that Henson was found in possession of “Choc beer” and there was no evidence' showing that said “Choc beer” was either spirituous, vinous, or malt liquor. It was therefore held that the evidence was insufficient to support the allegations in the indictment. In the instant ease the appellant was charged, under article 667, P. C., with selling malt liquor containing in excess of 1 per cent, alcohol by volume, and the state proved that the article sold was malt liquor containing 11.70 per cent, alcohol by volume. It therefore follows that in the instant case the evidence supports the allegations in the indictment and is therefore sufficient.

After a careful examination of the record, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.

PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission' of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.

On Motion for Rehearing.

LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant’s contention is that the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict. We have had some difficulty in satisfying ourselves on the question of identification of the bottle of malt liquor analyzed by the chemist as one of those bought from appellant. This arises in part from the fact that a number of bottles were evidently before the jury on this trial, and of course when the witness testified about “this bottle” or “these bottles,” it was plain to-the jury and trial court what bottle or bottles were indicated, but said language is not clear in the record, when the question of identity is raised. However, careful scrutiny reveals that a bottle which.had been analyzed by said chemist, and its contents shown to be malt liquor of 11.70 per cent, alcohol by volume, was by said chemist returned directly to the sheriff, and by the sheriff produced upon this trial along with other bottles which seemed to be still full of liquor, and that said bottle was one sold by appellant. The bottle whose contents had been analyzed was empty at the trial. Witness McConnell testified that the six bottles of beer gotten from appellant were turned over to him, and by him marked by scratching an E on the top of each bottle. At the time he had another bottle gotten from another party upon the top of which he scratched a P. He turned all these bottles over to the sheriff, who labeled them by pasting on each bottle a name, on the bottle gotten from appellant the name Etheredge being pasted. While Mr. McConnell was testifying he was handed the empty bottle labeled Etheredge. He said it did not have an E scratched on the top. He further testified: “There is not any mark on this empty container that I put on it.” Examining a number of other bottles, he said they all had E’s on them but this empty one. Handed another bottle, he said it was the bottle gotten from the other party and turned over to the sheriff at the same time as those gotten from appellant, ahd, further, he said: “I had this bottle which is marked ‘P’ on top of the other six.” This makes plain and puts beyond question the fact that the bottle marked “P” was still full, and still marked “P,” at the time of this trial, and therefore it could not be the one sent to the chemist and by him analyzed, for this latter bottle, labeled Etheredge, was present and empty at the timé of the trial. We can easily under*stand how the chemist, at the time he analyzed the contents of the bottle labeled Ether-edge, might misplace the top, not attaching any importance to it, and this would fully explain the absence from said bottle of any top with an E on it. The presence of a full bottle marked “P” at the trial, however, clarifies the confusion.

The motion for rehearing is overruled. 
      egr^For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     