
    BELL v. STATE.
    (No. 7025.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 28, 1923.
    Rehearing Denied April 25, 1923.)
    1. Intoxicating liquors <@=>222 — Indictment for manufacturing need not negative exceptions.
    Since the Amendment to the Dean Law, which took effect November 15, 1921 (Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588½ et seq.), and which removed the exceptions to the offense of manufacturing intoxicating liquors from the section of the statute defining the offense, it is not necessary for an indictment for manufacturing to negative the exceptions by alleging that the liquor was not manufactured for medicinal, sacramental, scientific, or mechanical purposes.
    2. Criminal law <@=>406(4) — Statements of accused in verified motion for return of property seized admissible against him.
    In a prosecution for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, statements made by accused in a verified motion for the return to him of articles taken from him that he resided upon the farm where the liquor was manufactured, and had it under lease, and that it was his home, were admissions competent against him as evidence of the ownership and possession of the still.
    3. Criminal law <@=>1091(14) — Bill of exceptions in question and answer form containing several exceptions is multifarious.
    A bill of - exceptions which is entirely in question and answer form, and reflects several exceptions, is multifarious, and will not be considered by the appellate court.
    4. Criminal law <@=>364(4), 368(3) — Declarations of accused and brother when found operating still that they owned it are res geste.
    Where accused and his brother and a third man were found by the officers when they raided the home of accused at which time a still was in actual operation in’ their presence, declarations by accused and his brother that they owned the still, and that the third man had nothing to do with it, were admissible as part of the res gestse.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    5. Criminal law <@=395 — Property seized may be used in evidence.
    Contentions that the provisions of the United States and state’s Constitutions relating to search warrants were violated do not render inadmissible against accused as evidence articles obtained under a search warrant.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Tar-rant County; George E. Hosey, Judge.
    Ernest Bell was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Estes, Payne, Morris & Pressly, of Fort Worth, for appellant.
    Jesse M. Brown, Or. Dist Atty., of Fort Worth, and R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the criminal district court of Tarrant county of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at four years in the penitentiary.

By five bills of exception appellant presents the refusal of a motion to require the state to return to him certain paraphernalia and property alleged to have been taken by the sheriff at the time of a raid upon his place, the overruling of his objections to the introduction of such articles in evidence on his trial, and of the admission in evidence of the testimony of the officers as to what they found on his premises and in his possession at the time of his arrest. All of the matters contained in said bills of exception have been decided adversely to the appellant’s contention in the ease of Welchek v. State (No. 7136) 247 S. W. 524, opinion handed down November 22, 1922.

Appellant moved to quash the indictment upon the ground that it failed to negative the exceptions contained in the statute forbidding the manufacture of intoxicating liquor; that is, the indictment did not state that it was not manufactured for medicinal, sacramental, scientific, or mechanical purposes. Since the adoption of the amendment to the Dean Law, which went into effect November 15, 1921 (Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588¼ et seq.), and which removed said exceptions from the section of the law defining the offense, it has been uniformly held that it is not necessary to negative such exceptions.

Complaint is made of the fact that a portion of the written motion asking for the return of the articles mentioned above, which was signed by appellant, was admitted in evidence upon this trial. Referring to that part of said motion which was admitted, it appears that in same appellant stated under oath that he resided upon what is known as the Reeves Farm, one mile north of Bedford, Tarrant county, Tex., and that he had said place under legal lease for a year, and that it was his home and castle. This being a statement in writing made by the appellant, which fact is not denied, it became admissible as reflecting the ownership and possession of the still, mash, etc., which were found in the residence on said farm at the time the officers made the raid, and which were offered in evidence in the development of the case against appellant for manufacturing intoxicating liquor. It is clear that the objection of appellant was properly overruled.

Appellant’s bill of exceptions No. 9 is entirely in question and answer form, and reflects several exceptions. Such a bill is multifarious, and will not be considered by this court. The same is also true of bill of exceptions No. 10, which consists of four pages of questions and answers.

There was an objection made to the testimony of the officers to the effect that, when they went to the home of appellant, where they found whisky in process of manufacture, and found appellant, his brother, and a man named McMillan, appellant and his brother both stated to said officers that McMillan had nothing to do with the still; that it was theirs. This would appear to be res gestee. The manufacture of the liquor in question was in actual process. The fire was under the furnace, the mash was boiling, the steam being condensed In the worm, and whisky- dripping from the mouth of the worm into a container.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

MORROW, P. J.

The questions raised in the motion for rehearing have to do with the contention of the appellant that, in seizing the whisky and the still with which it was manufactured under a search warrant, and in refusing to redeliver it to the appellant upon his motion, and in receiving in evidence testimony concerning its discovery under the search warrant, the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and of this state relating to searches and seizures were violated. The views of this court touching the legal questions involved were expressed in the case of Welchek v. State, 247 S. W. 524, and to the views there expressed which are determinative of the points raised in this case adherence is given.

The motion for rehearing is therefore overruled. 
      ©ssFor other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numhered .Digests and Indexes
     