
    FORESTER v. STATE.
    (No. 7263.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 2, 1923.)
    1. intoxicating liquors ©=3210 — Indictment oharging transporting need not charge transportation was for purpose of sale.
    In a prosecution for transporting intoxicating liquor, it is not necessary that the indictment charge the transportation for purposes of sale.
    2. Intoxicating liquors ©=3239(1) — In prosecution for transporting,-court need not submit issue whether for purpose of sale.
    In prosecution for transporting, court need not submit issue whether for purpose of sale.
    3. Criminal law ©=3®06(l) — Failure to require finding that liquor was not transported for mechanical, medicinal, scientific, or sacramental purposes immaterial, in view of instruction given.
    In a prosecution for transporting intoxicating liquor, defendant cannot complain that the court failed to instruct the jury that they must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the transportation was not for mechanical, medicinal, scientific, or' sacramental purposes, where an instruction has been given that, if the jury found from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did unlawfully,, and not for mechanical, medicinal, scientific, or sacramental purposes transport intoxicating liquor, they should find him guilty; otherwise, acquit.
    4. Criminal law ©=3394 — 'Testimony as to finding liquor admissible, though found without search warrant.
    In a prosecution for transporting intoxicating liquor, the admission of testimony by a sheriff that he had found liquor in accused’s car, held not error, though he had no search warrant.
    5.Intoxicating liquors ©=>227 — Testimony as to reputation for honesty and fair dealing properly excluded.
    In a prosecution for transporting intoxicating liquors, testimony as to accused’s reputation for honesty and fair dealing held properly excluded.
    Appeal from District Court, Hunt County; Geo. B. Hall, Judge.
    R. L. Forester was convicted of transporting liquor. He appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Sam D. Stinson and N. E. Peak, both of Greenville, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.'
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Hunt county of the offense of transporting intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary. From the statement of facts in this case it appears that appellant was arrested on a public road in Hunt county, and that he had in his car at the time about 120 half-gallon fruit jars of whisky. On behalf of the appellant a number of witnesses were introduced, who testified to his being under 25 years of age, and that he had never been convicted of a felony, and that he had a good reputation for being a peaceable, law-abiding citizen. This testimony was offered for its bearing upon appellant’s application for a suspended sentence.

Appellant’s first complaint is that the trial court refused to instruct the jury that the intoxicating liquor must be transported for purposes of sale, This contention has been decided against appellant. Stringer v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 241 S. W. 159; Crowley v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 242 S. W. 472. It is not necessary that the indictment charge the transportation for purposes of sale, nor that the court should submit such issue. In the same bill of exceptions containing the above complaint appears an attack upon the indictment as charging no offense; the ground of such attack being apparently that the Volstead Act is in conflict with what is known as the Dean Act, and that the latter, therefore, cannot stand. In the case of Ex parte Gilmore, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 529, 228 S. W. 199, this contention was decided against appellant.

The authorities have decided adversely the contention made by appellant in his second bill of exceptions, asserting that the court should have instructed the jury that they must believe beyond a reasonable' doubt that the transportation of the liquor had by appellant was not for mechanical, medicinal, scientific, or sacramental purposes. We observe that the court instructed the jury that, if they found from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, in Hunt county, Tex., on or about March 14, 1922, did unlawfully, and not for mechanical, medicinal, scientific, or sacramental purposes, transport intoxicating liquor, “you will find him guilty; otherwise, you will acquit the defendant.” Appellant is therefore without complaint.

Complaint, based on the proposition that the sheriff had no search warrant at the time he found the liquor in appellant’s car, and that his testimony should have been rejected, was decided adversely to appellant in the case of Welchek v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 247 S. W. 524.

Appellant, having introduced witnesses to testify that his reputation was good as a peaceable, law-abiding citizen, sought further to ask of a witness if the reputation of appellant for honesty and fair dealing was good. This was not an issue in the case, and the trial court properly sustained the state’s objection thereto.

Appellant’s bill of exceptions No. 10, complaining of the court’s action in rejecting evidence as to whether the officers had a search warrant, and whether they searched the car or not, presents no error, in view of the opinion in the Welchek Case, supra.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed. 
      ©=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     