
    TAYLOR v. STATE.
    (No. 11106.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 2, 1927.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 15, 1928.
    1. Criminal law <3=*109'1 (2)— Bill of exceptions must show that matters set up as objections to proceedings below are true.
    Bill of exceptions-must not only show objections made by the appellant to certain proceedings in the case, but must show that the objections were well founded and that matters raised therein are true.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;369(6) — Evidence showing continuous and extended manufacture of liquor at place where defendant was subsequently found making it was admissible, where defendant denied previous operation of still.
    In prosecution for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, where defense was that defendant did not know how to make it and had never made any before, evidence tending to show continuous and extended manufacture of liquor at place where defendant was subsequently found engaged in making it was admissible. .
    3. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;-226t-State could examine defendant found at still as to ownership of outfit, or prove how much whisky could be derived from mash.
    In prosecution for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, state might examine defendant found engaged in its manufacture as to his ownership of outfit, or prove by another witness amount of whisky which barrel of mash would make, where defendant denied having previously made liquor.
    4. Witnesses <&wkey;337(3)— Proof of bad reputation of defendant for veracity was admissible in criminal prosecution, where defendant took stand as witness.
    Where defendant in criminal prosecution had taken stand as witness in his own behalf, his general reputation for truth and veracity in community became an issue, and state could prove such reputation was bad.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    5. Criminal law <&wkey;4l9, 420(1)— Officer’s testimony as to mash and equipment found at still, previous to defendant’s arrest there made during officer’s absence, held not hearsay.
    In prosecution for.manufacturing intoxicating liquor, testimony of officer as to mash and equipment found at still at time previous to arrest held) not objectionable as hearsay by reason of witness’ absence at time of defendant’s arrest at still.
    Appeal from District Court, Nacogdoches County; O. -A. Hodges, Judge.
    Napoleon Taylor was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    S. M. Adams and R. A. McAlister, both of Nacogdoches, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for manufacturing intoxicating liquor; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.

Appellant and one Watts were indicted and tried jointly; Watts being acquitted and appellant convicted for the offense mentioned. Officers testified that at a certain point in Nacogdoches county they discovered material and paraphernalia usable in manufacturing liquor. They secreted themselves and after a time appellant and Watts came to the place. According to the testimony, appellant put the coil into the cooling barrel, chopped some wood, and built a fire under the boiler. The officers watched until they saw steam arising, and when they disclosed their presence they said there were five full barrels of mash, a fifty-gallon steel barrel, and equipped still with a coil running into the barrel, and whisky beginning to drip from the coil. They did not see Watts take any part in the process of manufacture.

Apparently appellant defended on the theory that he was making whisky for medicinal purposes. He said his mother used it when she could get it, and that he attempted to furnish same to her and kept her supplied when he could get it. He said when he could not get it his mother would be ill and. mad and suffering and groaning. Appellant testified that he helped put up the mash, etc., found by the officers, and that he had an interest in .it, and was to get one barrel of the six. He said he tried to make whisky the evening before the officers arrested him but did not know how to ruifc it. He said the next morning he took Watts down there to show him how to operate it; that Watts told him he knew how to run it. Appellant claimed the still, mash, etc., belonged to a white man named Wise, who bought the sugar, prepared the mash, etc., and was to give appellant all the whisky that one barrel of mash would make. Appellant testified, “I made that whisky, for my mother’s benefit, or attempted to make it for her.”

Appellant brings forward six bills of exception, each of which is subject to the general objection that same presents only the objections made by the appellant to certain proceedings in the case and then wholly fails to show that such objections are founded on facts, or that such objections are in fact true. To illustrate, appellant objected to witness Butler testifying that he saw six barrels of mash “down there ten days before and a steel barrel, the one used then and an old one that was worn out — used until it had rusted out. I went back there I think it was two or three days after, about two days and found six empty barrels.” Appellant objected to this evidence on the ground that it was hearsay and because there were no facts warranting the conclusion that appellant knew anything about such conditions, that it occurred ten days before the arrest of this defendant, and before he had been connected with the still, and because it was not shown to have been the same mash, and because defendant was not present, and for the further reason that the evidence was based on mere suspicion and was prejudicial and inflammatory. After reciting these objections, it is stated, “To the court’s action in overruling such objections, defendant excepted.” It has long been an established rule of this court that bills of exception must manifest that the complaints are well founded, and the matters set up as objections are true. To require this court to search through a lengthy statement of facts or through a 'lengthy transcript to ascertain whether the matters set up as objections are true or not would interminably lengthen the work of this court, and hence the necessity for requiring a bill of exceptions to itself present facts discharging the burden placed upon the objector to show his objection well founded. We might observe that in our opinion it would be permissible for the state to prove facts tending to show a continuous and extended manufacture of liquor at the place where appellant was found engaged in its manufacture, to which he had come and apparently taken charge of the material and equipment found and began the manufacture in the presence and view of the officers, and in a case in which he claimed that he did not know how to manufacture liquor, and had not made any before. The stat.e might legitimately introduce any testimony tending to rebut and overcome the defense interposed. We see no reason why appellant might not be asked, while on the witness stand, who he claimed as being the owner of the outfit, nor to prove by another witness as to how much whisky a barrel of mash would make. Certainly, appellant having taken the stand as a witness, his general reputation for truth and veracity in the community became an issue, and the state might prove such reputation bad if it could.

We have considered carefully each complaint appearing in the record, and, not believing any of them to have support, the judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, J.

Appellant is especially insistent that the bill of exception complaining of Sheriff Vaught’s testimony should be considered. The bill shows that state’s counsel asked the witness the following question:

“Did you go to this particular place about ten days before the time of the defendant’s arrest or at any other time with Carl Butler, and, if so, what did you find? ”

To which the witness answered:

“We found six barrels of mash, two stills, one complete equipment, a new fifty-gallon tank or barrel or steel drum, and one just below it that had been set up and had a hole eaten in it by rust. I went back about two days later and found six empty barrels; the mash found when defendant was arrested was not the same we found down there ten days before his arrest. I went back the third time and found six barrels of fresh mash, but I was not there at the time of the arrest of the defendant.”

Among other objections urged was that such evidence was “hearsay.” In his motion for rehearing, appellant insists that the answer of the witness having disclosed that he was not present at the time of appellant’s arrest, it necessarily follows that his testimony as to what he had previously seen at the place of the arrest was hearsay. We are not in accord with appellant’s view of the matter. Evidence of other witnesses shows that appellant was arrested at a still then being operated by him and that on previous occasions the sheriff had visited that particular place. This being true, we do not understand it would offend against the rule excluding hearsay evidence to permit the sheriff to state the result of his observations on the occasion of prior visits if such evidence was otherwise admissible. Under the facts of the present case, we entertain no doubt as to its admissibility.

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