
    Juan Paralez v. The State.
    No. 13038.
    Delivered February 19, 1930.
    Reported in 25 S. W. (2d) 856.
    
      The opinion states the case.
    
      Strode & Pitts of Conroe, for appellant.
    
      A. A. Dawson of Canton, State’s Attorney, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.

On the occasion of a search one gallon of whisky was found in appellant’s possession in his house. In his garage were found empty containers which had some whisky in them. Appellant testified that the whisky belonged to a negro who was keeping it in appellant’s house, having brought it to his house on two occasions. Appellant denied having the whisky for the purpose of selling it himself. He said it had only been at his house a short time when the officers came. He said the negro’s name was Tom, but he did not know the rest of his name. Appellant denied having told the sheriff that he had bought this liquor from a negro for the purpose of. dividing it up among others.

There are two bills of exception. The first complains of the reception in evidence of the statement made by appellant as to the purpose for which he had possession of this whisky, it being insisted that appellant was under arrest and not warned. The court qualifies this bill of exceptions by stating that at the time the jug of whisky was found in appellant’s possession, and having the whisky before them, appellant voluntarily stated to the sheriff, not in response to any question, that he had got the whisky and all the boys were going to come there and divide it up. The statement was res geste and the bill shows no error.

The other bill was taken tó the overruling of . the motion for new trial. It is not shown that any testimony was introduced in support of the motion for new trial, or that there was any error otherwise in overruling said motion.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

HAWKINS, Judge.

We think the Blalock case, 103 Tex. Cr. R. 303, 280 S. W. 784 upon which appellant relies has no application under the facts of the present case. There accused was on trial for theft of a car, a transaction which had already terminated; here appellant was on trial for possessing whisky for the purpose of sale, and the statement objected to was made by appellant at the time the possession was discovered and with reference to the "very purpose for which he claimed to be then possessing it.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

Overruled.  