
    MITCHELL v. STATE.
    (No. 7329.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 28, 1923.)
    1. Criminal law <$=>1144(12) — Facts in bill of exception must overcome presumption of correctness of admission of evidence.
    On appeal from a conviction of unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor, in view of the fact that many conditions might arise in the prosecution rendering admissible testimony of sale of liquor by the accused, a bill of exceptions complaining of the admission of such testinrony must contain facts to overcome the legal presumption of the correctness of its admission.
    2. Criminal law <$=>1091 (10) — Bill of exceptions must show objection to receipt of evidence admissible under some circumstances.
    Where complaint is made on appeal of the receipt of evidence which is admissible under
    some circumstances, the bill of exceptions must show the objections urged against it.
    Appeal from District Court, San Jacinto County; J. L. Manry, Judge.
    Sol Mitchell was convicted of the unlawful manufacture' of liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    R. G.- Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The offense is the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

A recital of the evidence is deemed unnecessary. It is sufficient to support the conviction.

Three bills of exception are found in the record. In one it is recited that a witness testified that’ he had bought whisky from the appellant on a certain occasion named. The surrounding facts are not given, nor does the bill reveal the nature of the objection urged against the admission of the testimony. In a prosecution for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, there are many conditions which might arise rendering the proof of sale of whisky relevant and material; for instance, to show the purpose for which the liquor was made. Under such circumstances, the legal presumption is in favor of the correctness of the trial court’s ruling, and the accused must, by the facts in his bill of exceptions, overcome such presumption. Brown v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 451, 203 S. W. 898; Vernon’s Tex. Crim. Stat, vol. 2, p. 543, note 29; Dollar v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 398, 216 S. W. 1089. It is essential also that where there is complaint made of the receipt in evidence which might under some 'Circumstances be admissible, that the bill show the objection urged against it. Davis v. State, 14 Tex. App. 645; Bowen v. State, 72 Tex. Cr. R. 408, 162 S. W. 1146, and other cases listed in Vernon’s Tex. Crim. Stat. vol. 2, p. 543. See, also, Houser v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 296, 222 S. W. 240; Alexander v. State, 82 Tex. Cr. R. 431, 199 S. W. 292; Mirick v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 388, 204 S. W. 222; Lane v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 140, 229 S. W. 547.

In bill No. 2 it is shown that the witness was asked if he had stopped at the house of the accused on Saturday night. In reply he stated that he had stopped there and that he saw appellant’s wife. State’s counsel inquired what was said to her. At this point appellant’s counsel said, “We object to that,” and the court sustained the objection.

In bill No. 3 complaint is made of the rejection by the court of proof of a declaration of Ison Harrison in the presence of the witness MeComb. The bill creates the inference that this was offered for the purpose of impeachment. However, the hill is silent | touching any predicate for the impeachment, and, moreover, it fails to reveal any facts showing the materiality of the testimony.

The two bills last discussed are subject to the same faults pointed out in the first bill. Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed. 
      <@=3For other oases see-same topic and KEY-NU.MBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     