
    SPENCER v. STATE.
    (No. 8901.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 22, 1925.)
    1. Criminal law 4&wkey;394 — Reception of testimony as to finding of whisky without search warrant held not error.
    Reception of testimony as to finding of whisky without search warrant held not error.
    2. Criminal law 4&wkey;1086(l4) — Indispensable to review of refused charge that exception to refusal appear from record.
    It is indispensable to a review of refused charge that exception to refusal appear from record either in the form of notation on the charge showing reservation of exception to its refusal, or a formal bill of exception preserving the point. »
    ®=»Por other cases see same topic and-KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Appeal from District Court, Sabine County; Y. H. Stark, Judge.
    Joe Spencer was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for transporting intoxicating liquor. Punishment; two years in the penitentiary.

Between 12 and 1 o’clock at night officers discovered defendant driving along the road in a 2-horse wagon. In it they found a 5-gallon keg of whisky.

Complaint is made because the officers were permitted to testify about finding the whisky, it being shown they had no search warrant. This is not an open question in this state. Welchek v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 271, 247 S. W. 524; Harris v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 349, 248 S. W. 54; Bell v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 266, 250 S. W. 177; Forrester v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 295, 250 S. W. 1027; Burks v. State, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 113, 260 S. W. 181.

A special charge requested by defendant was refused. There is no notation on the charge showing that exception was reserved to its refusal; neither is there a formal bill of exception preserving the point. It is indispensable that an exception in one form or the other appear from the record. Linder v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 316, 250 S. W. 703, and authorities therein cited.

The judgment is affirmed.  