
    BELSON v. STATE.
    (No. 9824.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 3, 1926.)
    Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;236(l9).
    Evidence held insufficient to support conviction for manufacture of intoxicating liquor.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Falls County; Prentice Oltorf, Judge.
    Ben H. Belson was convicted for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and be appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Nat Llewellyn and Frank Oltorf, botb of Marlin, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for tbe State.
   BAKER, J.

The appellant was convicted in tbe district court of Falls county for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and bis punishment assessed at one year in tbe penitentiary.

The record discloses that tbe officers raided appellant’s residence and premises, and found in an outbouse a still, some barrels, and wbat tbe state’s witnesses contended was corn whisky, and wbicb tbe state’s chemist, who analyzed two bottles of it, found to contain 7.75 and 10.65 per cent., respectively, of alcohol per volume. Tbe defendant denied any knowledge of any still, barrels, and of tbe alleged whisky being in said outbouse, until same was found by tbe officers while in bis presence. There are many bills of exceptions in tbe record as to tbe admission of testimony and the refusal of the court to. giye special charges, but, after a careful consideration of same, we are of the opinion that there is only one question in tbe record wbicb demands our attention, and that is tbe sufficiency of tbe evidence to sustain tbe conviction. Tbe undisputed testimony shows that tbe appellant was engaged in tbe real estate business largely, and was away from home a great portion of the time, and away from home that day, and that be had Mexicans on bis place working tbe farm, and another aged man, who lived with him and looked after all of bis stock, and took care of tbe premises generally and to tbe locking of tbe bouses, and on tbe night of. the raid tbe outbouse where tbe still and other articles in question were found was locked, and this man bad the key, and that tbe appellant’s brother-in-law was on tbe premises at tbe time of tbe raid, and had been there during the day, and was a frequent visitor at bis bouse for quite awhile prior .to tbe date in question. Under this state of tbe facts, of necessity tbe state would have to rely upon circumstantial evidence, and this record discloses that there were other parties on the premises besides tbe appellant to whom tbe evidence of guilt would point as strongly as to that of tbe appellant. Under such a state of facts this court has held that such evidence is insufficient to warrant a conviction, in tbe absence of proof that tbe parties were acting together. Branch’s Ann. Penal Code, § 1877; Mathis v. State, 272 S. W. 264, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 509; .Curry v. State, 278 S. W. 855 (No. 9714, delivered Jan. 6, 1926, yet unreported officially). We are of tbe opinion that tbe evidence is insufficient to warrant tbe conviction.

For tbe reasons above stated, tbe judgment of tbe trial court is reversed and remanded.

PER CURIAM. Tbe foregoing opinion of tbe Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of tbe Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.  