
    Clovis Thomas v. The State.
    No. 7453.
    Decided May 16, 1923.
    1. —Transporting Intoxicating Liquor — Bill of Exceptions.
    In view of the trial judge’s qualifications to the first bill of exceptions, no ’error was presented.
    2. —Same—Indictment—Negative Averments.
    It was unnecessary to negative the exceptions in the statute, and the indictment is sufficient, nor was it necessary to allege that the transportation was for the purpose of sale, nor is the State law in conflict with the Federal law, and there was no error in overruling the motion to quash.
    Appeal from the District Court of Red River. Tried below before the Honorable Austin S. Dood:
    
      Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The opinion, states the cáse.
    
      T. T. Thompson for appellant.
    
      R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
    Cited, cases in the opinion.
   HAWKINS, Judge.

Appellant was under indictment for the offense of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor. He entered a plea of guilty and applied for suspended sentence. Punishment was assessed at one year in the penitentiary and suspended sentence denied.

In view of the trial judge’s qualification to the first bill of exceptions no error is presented.

The court properly overruled the motion to quash the indictment. It was returned at the May term of Court, 1922, and alleged the offense to have been committed in April, 1922. Since the amendment to the “Dean Liquor Law,” Thirty-seventh Leg. 1st & 2d C. S., page 233, it has been unnecessary to negative the exceptions. Crowley v. State, 92 Tex. Crim. Rep., 103, 242 S. W. Rep., 472. Neither is it necessary to allege the transportation to have been for the purpose of sale. Crowley v. State (supra); Stringer v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. Rep., 46, 241 S. W. Rep., 159. These cases have been uniformly followed.

The other criticism of the indictment has been settled against appellant in Ex parte Gilmore, 88 Tex. Cr. Rep., 529, 228 S. W. Rep., 199; Chandler v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. Rep., 308, 232 S. W. Rep., 336; Chandler v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. Rep., 599, 232 S. W. Rep., 337. Writs of error to the Supreme Court of the United States were granted in the Chandler eases, and the holding of this court sustained.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.  