
    NUNLEY v. STATE.
    (No. 7699.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 29, 1923.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 24, 1923.)
    Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;236( 19) — Evidence held to sustain conviction for manufacture.
    Evidence held, to sustain- conviction for manufacture of intoxicating liquor.
    Appeal from District Court, Eloyd County; R. C. Joiner, Judge.
    Claude Nunley was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    David Fitzgerald and W. Ona Morton, both of Memphis, for appellant.
    R. G-. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor containing in excess of 1 per cent, alcohol, punishment being assessed c.t two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

There are no bills of exception in the record, and the only question presented is the sufficiency of the evidence. We do not deem it necessary to set it out at any length. Appellant was indicted jointly with W. M. and Fred Large, appellant only being upon trial. The evidence shows that the premises upon which the liquor was claimed to have been manufactured had been leased by one of the Large boys, but that Nunley had been living upon the place with them for some time. A search of the premises was made by the officers, and they found in and about the house, barn, and other portions of the premises one barrel full of mash, another about half filled, several empty barr.els, tubs, oil cans, pipes, elbows, and copper coils. Some of the pipe bore evidence of having been subjected to heat. In the garden buried was found a 10-gallon oak keg containing whisky. The garden had recently been plowed and tomato plants had been set out over where the keg was discovered. Some of the contents of the keg showed by analysis to contain more than 39 per cent, alcohol. It was also in evidence that the various equipment described by the witnesses could be so assembled as to manufacture whisky. A witness testified that on one occasion he went to the house and found a barrel with holes bored in it and a pipe running from these holes into a stove in the house, and a pipe running also from the barrel to a sink in the kitchen. It was also shown that appellant on various occasions had bought as much at one time as 100 pounds of sugar and had bought a quantity of yeast cake at the same time.

The charge of the court and the special charges given at appellant’s request appear to have presented the matter in so favorable a light to him no objection was taken thereto.

While the case is one of circumstantial evidence, we think there is no question but that it is sufficient to support the verdict, and the judgment is ordered affirmed. 
      <g^s>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     