
    SCOTT et al. v. STATE.
    (No. 7730.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 12, 1924.
    Rehearing Denied April 30, 1924.)
    1. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;131— Instruction to acquit, if jury doubted that transportation was for purpose of sale, held properly denied..
    In a prosecution for transporting intoxicating liquor, a requested instruction that it was unlawful to transport the saíne for purposes of sale, and that the jury should acquit, if they hadi a doubt as to whether such was the purpose of the transportation, held prop--erly refused.
    2. Criminal faw &wkey;>888 — District attorney's rewriting of informal verdict and its subsequent acknowledgment by jury held not to show error.
    Where an informal verdict was rewritten by district attorney and read to the jury which, in response to question by trial judge, acknowledged it as their verdict, there was no error.
    <j&wkey;For oilier cases see same topic and KEY-ljUMBER. in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Appeal from District Court, Lee County; R. J. Alexander, Judge.
    George Scott and Grover Upchurch were convicted of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor, and they appeal.
    Affirmed.
    J. E. Taulbee, -of Georgetown, for appellants.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   LÁTTIMORE, J.

Appellants were convicted in the district court of Lee county of transporting intoxicating liquor, and their punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.

The evidence seems ample to support the conviction and shows from the state’s standpoint that they transported from a point in Lee county to Georgetown in Williamson county four gallons of whisky. They bought it from a man named Bodkin, and claimed they had it sold for $80.

The indictment is in form which has heretofore often been held by us sufficient, and there was no error in overruling the motion to quash same. A special charge requesting the court to tell the jury that it is unlawful to transport liquor for purposes of sale, and that the jury should acquit if they had a doubt as to whether such was the purpose of the transportation, was properly refused, as were all of the other special charges which appear in the record.

The verdict as originally returned was regarded as informal and was rewritten by the district attorney, and then read to the jury, and the learned trial judge asked them and each of them if that was their verdict, to which they replied, “yes.” There was no error in this proceeding. The state witnesses in this case are specifically removed from the character of accomplices by statute.

No error appearing in the record, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

The only complaint made is that we failed to discuss the matter of .accomplices. The question of accomplices or accomplice testimony was not raised in any way in the trial court. The only way in which we would' consider it at this time would be as to the sufficiency of the testimony. In view of the motion we have again examined the record, .and find that the conviction is amply supported by the testimony of Bessie Bodkin and her mother, neither of whom appear to have had anything to do with the liquor, the transportation of which constitutes the offense charged against appellants.

The motion for rehearing will be overruled.  