
    Oce MARTIN v. STATE.
    (No. 9286.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 8, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied April 29, 1925.)
    Appeal from District Court, Robertson County; W. C. Davis, Judge.
    H; A. Bush, of Franklin, and Robert M. Lyles, of Groesbeck, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor is the offense; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year. Alvie Baker, the alleged purchaser, gave specific and direct testimony to the effect that he bought whisky from the appellant. The transaction was denied by the appellant. The other testimony in the case was directed to the same issue. No affirmative defense arises from the evidence. No complaint of the rulings of the trial court upon the admission or rejection of evidence is brought forward by bill of exceptions; nor was there any exception filed to the charge of the court. The indictment is regular. The solution of the controverted issues by the jury is binding upon this court. The' judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

.LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant urges the insufficiency of the testimony, and in view of his motion we have again reviewed it. As we understand appellant, he claims that Alvie Baker bought the whisky, if 'at all, with money furnished him by other parties, and that Baker received no profit for his part in the transaction. We do not see how this could avail appellant. If so, then the matter of evading this law would be thus made easy. A group of men who wanted whisky would get some friend or other person, without profit, to go and buy it from one who was selling it in violation of law, prove that the purchaser was making no profit in the transaction, and the accused go unwhipped of justice. There is no soundness in the contention. Baker testified positively that he bought a quart of liquor from appellant and gave him $3 for it. In all the surroundings he was corroborated by other witnesses. The fact that appellant’s testimony combated the truth of that for the state never furnishes this court sufficient ground for reversing a case on the lack of testimony. It is the province of the jury to reconcile conflicts in the testimony, if they can, and, if they cannot, and they accept that of the state as true, we recognize their right to do so. The motion for rehearing will be overruled.  