
    Geronimo de La Rosa v. The State.
    No. 9912.
    Delivered February 24, 1926.
    Possessing Intoxicating Liquor — Evidence—Held, Sufficient.
    There are no bills of exception, nor complaints of the court’s charge, and a careful consideration of the facts as they appear in the record impresses us that the verdict of the jury was fully warranted by the evidence, and the cause is affirmed.
    Appeal from the District Court of Willacy County. Tried below before the Hon. A. W. Cunningham, Judge.
    Appeal from a conviction of possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, penalty one year in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    No brief filed for appellant.
    
      Sam D. Stinson, State’s Attorney, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.
   BAKER, Judge.

The appellant was convicted in the District Court of Willacy County for unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor, and his punishment assessed at one year in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without any bills of exceptions or objections to the charge of the court, and as presented, leaves but one question for our consideration, and that is the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant the conviction. After a careful consideration of all the evidence adduced upon the trial of this case, we are unable to reach the conclusion that the jury was unauthorized under the facts as presented, in convicting the defendant; and are therefore of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court should be in all things affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and approved by the Court.  