
    PIPPEN v. STATE.
    (No. 9684.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 23, 1925.)
    1. Criminal lav/ <&wkey;507(l) — Witness testifying as to making whisky and selling to accused, who transported it, held an accomplice.
    Witness, who swore- that he and another man made whisky, and that he sold a quantity of it to accused, who transported it from place of purchase to some other place, held an accomplice.
    2. Criminal law i&wkey;>5IO — Conviction on testimony of accomplices cannot be sustained.
    A conviction, resting solely upon testimony of one or any number of accomplices, cannot be sustained.
    Appeal from District Court, Hunt County ; J. M. Kelson, Judge.
    J. H. Pippen was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, .and he appeals.
    Reversed.
    Crosby & Estes, of Greenville, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Hunt county of transporting intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.

But one witness gave testimony. He swore that he and another man made whisky, and that he sold a quantity of it to appellant, who transported it away from the place of purchase to some other place. This witness was an accomplice. Cate v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 611, 272 S. W. 210. A conviction, resting solely upon the testimony of one or any number of accomplices, cannot be sustained.

The evidence being insufficient to support the judgment, a reversal is ordered.  