
    FRIER v. STATE.
    (No. 11164.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 16, 1927.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 4, 1928,
    1. Intoxicating liquors ©=3236(19) — Facts held to sustain conviction of possessing still and equipment for manufacturing liquor.
    Facts' held sufficient to sustain conviction of possession of still and equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor.
    2. Criminal law ©=>1092(9) — Court had no authority to grant additional time to file bills of exception after time originally granted had expired.
    Trial court was without authority to, enter order granting further extension of time within which to file bills of exception after 60-day period originally granted therefor had expired.
    Appeal from District Court, Kaufman County; Joel R. Bond, Judge.
    
      Lee Frier was convicted, of possessing a «till and equipment for tlie manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and lie appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Baskett & De Lee, of Dallas, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State. ,
   LATTIMOjRE, J.

Conviction for possessing a still and equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.

The facts seem to sufficiently support the jury’s conclusion of guilt. Just across a turn row and adjacent to the farm which appellant was cultivating officers discovered a still, mash, and signs of use, and the road leading from appellant’s home down to the immediate vicinity of the still gave evidence of travel. They watched the still and saw appellant and his son come to same and begin to remove the tops from the barrels and discuss how much they should make, etc. The facts support the verdict and judgment.

Appellant’s motion for new trial was overruled March 31, 1927, and he was given 60 days in which to file bills of exception. Said 60 days expired May 30, 1927. On May 31st the trial judge entered an order granting further extension of time in which to file such bills of exception. The time originally granted having expired before the extension order was made, the trial court was without authority to make same. Mireles v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 396, 266 S. W. 418. It is to be regretted that we cannot consider the bills- of exception.

No error appearing in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

This is a companion ease to cause No. 11163, Jess Frier v. State, 1 S. W. (2d) 306, motion for rehearing in which is this day ■overruled. The motion for rehearing in the instant case is based on exactly the same •grounds as those in cause No. 11163, supra.. For the same reason the motion for rehearing is overruled. 
      ©=>For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     