
    WEBB et al. v. STATE.
    (No. 9589.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 2, 1925.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;404( I) — Permitting state to place whisky alleged to have been transported on table in view of jury held not error.
    Permitting state, in prosecution for transporting intoxicating liquor, to place whisky alleged to have been transported on table in view of jury, held not error, where state’s witness properly identified whisky that was introduced in evidence.
    2. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;-233 (I) — Admission of testimony that defendant, prosecuted for transportation, standing close to store owner while latter was operating combination on safe from which liquor was missing, held not error.
    In prosecution for transporting intoxicating liquor, admission of testimony of owner of store from which whisky was alleged to have been stolen that, shortly before store was burglarized, one of defendants was standing close to him while he was working combination of safe from which whisky was missing, held not error, as it tended to connect such defendant with alleged burglary of store from which whisky was taken.
    3. Criminal iaw 4&wkey;369(6)— Evidence as to burglarizing store and missing of articles, including whisky, therefrom, held admissible in prosecution for unlawful transportation of such whisky.
    In prosecution for transporting intoxicating liquor, based on alleged burglarizing of drug store and taking whisky therefrom, evidence as to burglarizing of store, missing of whisky, watch, face powders, and Jamaica'ginger therefrom, and of finding of face powders and Jamaica ginger in possession of one of defendants, held not error, as it connected defendants with offense of transporting whisky in question.
    4. Criminal law <&wkey;5l8(l), 530 — Confession held properly admitted without proof of warning or written confession," where secreted stolen property found as result thereof.
    Where, in prosecution for transporting liquor, officers testified that, from confession received from one of defendants, they found a bottle of whisky where defendants had secreted it, under Code Cr. Rroc. 1925, art. 727 (Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. «19), it was not necessary to show warning or written confession to render confession admissible, and its admission was not error, especially where court limited confession to question of guilt or innocence of defendant making it.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Potter County; Henry S. Bishop, Judge.
    B. D. Webb and another were convicted of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor, and they appeal.
    Affirmed.
    Reeder & Reeder, of Amarillo, for appellants.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty:, of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   BAKER, J.

The appellants were convicted in the district court of Potter county of the offense of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor, and the punishment of each assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

This court has not been furnished with a brief by the appellants, but we find in the record fourteen bills of exceptions.

Briefly stated, the record discloses the facts to be that the appellants, on the night of the alleged offense, in Amarillo, Tex., were at a café with Carter Bledsoe and Leonard Ramey, and that, just before appellants left said café, appellant Webb, the owner of the automobile in question, told Bledsoe and Ramey to ,come around to Taylor street and pick them up, and that, after appellants left the café, said Ramey and Bledsoe .got in appellant Webb’s car and drove around to said street, picked up appellant Augerot, and in going down the street back of Oliver’s Drug Store, discovered appellant Webb coming out of said drug store with several packages in his hands and arms which he put into the automobile, and remarked, “Let’s get away from here.” After appellant Webb got into the automobile they drove out of town about four miles, where the car was stopped, and appellants got out and took said packages out, carried them down a draw, and, whén the said appellants returned to the car where Bledsoe and Ramey remained, they only had one bottle of whisky with them. All of said parties got into the car and returned to Amarillo, and said appellants went to the house of one Mrs. Pegues in an intoxicated condition. They carried about fifteen packages with them and she insisted that they take said packages out and remove said car from in front of her house, which they did. The following morning Augerot was arrested at the house occupied by Webb by the officers, and found with some whisky on him and other articles of the kind that were missing from said Oliver’s Drug Store, and the officers in searching said promises found about fifteen bottles of whisky in the garage on said premises of same brand and kind missing in said drug store. This is a sufficient statement of facts for a discussion of this opinion.

Complaint is made in bill of exception 1 to the court in permitting the state to bring the whisky in question in the presence of the jury and place same upon the table in view of the jury. There is no merit in this contention. The state’s witness properly identified the whisky that was introduced in evidence, and there is no error in having same placed in view of the jury during said trial. Agapito Rueda v. State, 277 S. W. 116, recently decided by tbis court and not [officially] reported.

Complaint is made to tbe action of tbe court in permitting tbe state to prove by tbe witness Oliver, owner of tbe drug store in question, that just a short time prior to tbe burglarizing of bis store .in question, appellant Webb was standing close to bim while be was operating and working tbe combination on bis safe from which tbe whisky was missing. We are of tbe opinion that there is no error shown in tbis particular, as this evidence tended to connect tbe appellant Webb with tbe alleged burglary of tbe store from which the said whisky was taken.

Appellant complains in bills of exceptions to tbe court’s permitting tbe state to show by evidence tbe burglarizing of tbe drug store in question, and tbe missing of tbe whisky therefrom, and tbe missing of a watch, face powders, and Jamaica ginger, and tbe proof of finding face powders and Jamaica ginger in possession of appellant Augerot of tbe kind that was kept in said drug store, and as to tbe testimony of Mrs. Pegues relative to tbe appellants’ coming to her bouse and having packages on tbe night of tbe alleged burglary, and her requesting that they take said packages away, because it is contended that all of said testimony was prejudicial and unnecessary to show tbe transporting of tbe whisky in question by tbe appellants. We are of tbe opinion that all of said bills, raising said questions and similar questions, show no error, and are without merit, because said evidence connects the appellants with tbe offense of tbe transporting the whisky in question, and that it was permissible for tbe state to show by said testimony tbe entire transaction and appellants’ connection therewith.

There is complaint made to tbe action of tbe court in permitting tbe state to introduce a confession made by tbe appellant Augerot to tbe officers, because it is alleged that it was not shown that be was properly warned, and was not reduced to writing. There is no merit in tbis contention, because tbis evidence came fully within tbe exception of tbe statute which provides that, where tbe secreted stolen property is found as a result of said confession, it is not necessary to show warning or a written confession. Article 727, C. C. P. 1925 Revised Penal Code; Vernon’s C. C. P. art. 810. In tbis instance the testimony of tbe officers showed that from tbe confession received they found one bottle of whisky in question where appellant told them they bad placed it. Tbe court in bis charge to tbe jury properly limited said confession to the question of guilt or innocence of Augerot alone, and instructed tbe jury they could not consider same as any evidence against appellant Webb.

After careful examination of tbe entire record, we are of tbe opinion that there is no error shown in tbe trial of this case, and tbe judgment of tbe trial court should .be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.

PER CURIAM.

Tbe foregoing opinion of tbe Commission of Appeals has been examined by tbe judges of tbe Court of Criminal Appeals and, approved by tbe court. 
      <&wkey;For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER, in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     