
    (104 So. 612)
    No. 27136.
    STATE v. MARCANTEL.
    (April 27, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied May 25, 1925.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    1. Indictment and information &wkey;>l2l(4)— State not required to set forth alcoholic content of whisky sold by defendant, as court Judicially knows that whisky is intoxicating.
    In liquor prosecution, when state, in answer to defendant’s request for particulars, informed defendant that intoxicating liquor which he was charged with selling was whisky, it was not required to set forth alcoholic content thereof, in view of Act No. 39 of 1921 (Ex Sess.); court taking judicial cognizance of fact that whisky is highly alcoholic and intoxicating.
    2. Indictment and information <&wkey;12l(4)— State not required to give name of person to whom defendant sold intoxicating liquor.
    In liquor prosecution, state was not required, in answer to defendant’s request for bill of particulars, to give name of person to whom defendant sold intoxicating liquor.
    3. Indictment and information <&wkey;l2I(4)— State not required to furnish further particulars, where defendant charged with selling intoxicating liquor on or about a certain day.
    In liquor prosecution in which defendant was charged with having sold intoxicating liquor for beverage purpose on or about a certain day, state was not required to furnish further particulars, where it was confined and proof ■restricted to day named in information.
    4. Indictment and information 121 (4) — State not required to set forth exact hour at which intoxicating liquor was sold.
    In liquor prosecution in which defendant was charged with having sold intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes on or about a certain day, state was n.ot required to set forth exact hour at which intoxicating liquor was sold. '
    5. Criminal law &wkey;>ll58(l) — Supreme Court not authorized to pass on sufficiency of evidence to convict.
    Supreme Court is without jurisdiction, in view of Const. 1921, art. 7, § 10, to pass on the sufficiency of the evidence to convict.
    
      Appeal from Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Allen; Jerry Cline, Judge.
    Oras Marcantel was convicted of violating the Prohibition Law, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Mark O. Piekrel, of Oakdale, for appellant.
    Percy Saint, Atty. Gen., John J. Robira, Dist. Atty., and S. H. Jones, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Lake Charles (Percy T. Ogden, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Bernard Cocke, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.
   ST. PAUL, J.

The information charged that on or about January 6, 1925, defendant did “unlawfully sell and dispose of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes.”

Defendant thereupon asked for the following particulars, to wit: (1) Exact day and hour; (2) exact place; (3) person of vendee; (4) kind of liquor; (5) quantity; (6) price received; (7) alcoholic content; (8) whether sold by defendant personally or through another.

Whereupon the state voluntarily furnished, in answer thereto, the following particulars seriatim,, to wit: (1) The date alleged in the bill of information; (2) in or near the outskirts of Kinder, on the road leading from Kinder to Lake Charles, La.; (3) the state is not required to name the vendee; (4) whisky, sometimes called “shinney”; (5) about three pop bottles; (6) $4; (7) the state is unable to give the alcoholic content, but avers that it is highly alcoholic and intoxicating; (8) by defendant personally.

It will thus be seen that defendant was voluntarily given all the information he asked for, except (1) the exact hour at which the liquor was sold, (2) the name of the purchaser, (3) the alcoholic content of the liquor sold; and the trial judge says that the evidence was confined to t-he date alleged in the indictment.

I.

Where the defendant is charged with possessing, manufacturing, or selling whisky for beverage purposes, it is not necessary to set forth the alcoholic content thereof; since the statute (Act No. 39 of 1921 [Ex. Sess.]) forbids in express terms the possession, manufacture, and sale of whisky, and courts will take judicial cognizance of the fact that whisky is highly alcoholic and intoxicating. State v. Coco, 152 La. 241, 92 So. 883; State v. McClinton, 152 La. 632, 94 So. 141; State v. Whittaker, 152 La. 639, 94 So. 144; State v. Rodgers, 152 La. 790, 94 So. 397; State v. Roy, 152 La. 933, 94 So. 703; State v. Lowry, 153 La. 177, 95 So. 596; State v. Benoit, 153 La. 421, 96 So. 18; State v. Pete, 153 La. 943, 96 So. 818; State v. Yokum, 155 La. 846, 99 So. 621. So that, when the state informed defendant that the intoxicating liquor which he was charged with selling was whisky, it was no longer required to set forth the alcoholic content thereof.

II.

In State v. Cryar, 104 So. 304, No. 27, 092 of our docket, decided this day, we held that “the state was not required to give the name of the person to whom the defendant sold the intoxicating liquor,” citing State v. Smith, 139 La. 442, 71 So. 734; State v. Coile, 137 La. 673, 69 So. 90; State v. Mines, 137 La. 489, 68 So. 837; State v. Jackson, 135 La. 365, 65 So. 491; State v. Munlin, 133 La. 60, 62 So. 351; State v. John, 129 La. 212, 55 So. 766; State v. Moeling, 129 La. 204, 55 So. 764; State v. Burkhalter, 118 La. 657, 43 So. 268.

III.

Again in State v. Cryar, supra, we held that when the state charged a defendant with having sold intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes on or about a certain date, there was no occasion for furnishing further particulars, “since it would have been the duty of the trial court (in an offense of this kind) to confine the state, and restrict the proof, to the day named in the information,” citing State v. De Arman, 153 La. 345, 95 So. 803. And the trial judge says that the state was confined, and the proof restricted, to the day named in the information.

We further held in that same case that “the state was not required to set forth in detail whether the sale took place in the day time, or in the night, or to specify the particular hour at which said sale took place,” citing State v. De Arman, 153 La. 345, 95 So. 803, and State v. Mines, 13,7 La. 489, 68 So. 837. Hence the trial judge properly refused to require the state to set forth the exact hour at which the intoxicating liquor was sold.

IV.

The foregoing covers defendant’s bill of exception No. 1. In his brief defendant himself says of his bill of exception No. 2:

“The questions of law arising under this bill are the same as those under bill of exception No. 1; therefore it is unnecessary to discuss them further.”

V.

Bill of exception No. 3 is frankly an endeavor to have this court pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence on which the defendant was convicted. This court is entirely urithout jurisdiction to do so; for — ■

“The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall also extend to criminal cases on questions of Uno ' alone. * * * ” (Italics ours.) Const. 1921, art. 7, § 10, par. 7, p. 40.

Decree.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.

O’NIELL, C. J., concurs in the decree. 
      
       Ante, p. 498.
     