
    BURLEY v. STATE.
    (No. 10447.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 15, 1926.)
    1. Intoxicating liquors &wkey;>139 — Statutes relating to possession for sale of intoxicating liq-our and liquor containing excess alcohol held to denounce different offenses (Pen. Code 1925, arts. 666, 667).
    Offense named in Pen. Code 1925, art. 666, denouncing possession for purpose of sale of spirituous, vinous, or malt liquor capable of producing intoxication, held not the same as that in article 667, denouncing possession for purpose of sale of any potable liquor containing in excess of 1 per cent, of alcohol by volume.
    2. Intoxicating liquors &wkey;>239(5) — Instruction authorizing conviction on finding possession of liquor with excessive alcoholic content held erroneous under indictment for possession of intoxicating liquor (Pen. Code 1925, arts. 666, 667).
    Under indictment for possession for purpose of sale of intoxicating liquor, in violation of Pen. Code 1925, art. 666, instruction authorizing conviction, on finding possession of liquor containing excessive alcoholic per cent, in violation of article 667, held reversible error.
    Appeal from District Court, Hunt County; J. M. Melson, Judgé.
    Fred Burley was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    . Morgan & Morgan, of Greenville, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty.,, of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Appeal is 'from c'onviction for possessing for the purpose of sale intoxicating liquor; punishment being one year in the penitentiary.

The indictment contained only one count, and was drawn under article 666, P. C. 1925, which denounces as a crime the possession for the purpose of sale of spirituous, vinous, or malt liquor capable of producing intoxication. Article 667, P. C. 1925, also denounces as a crime the possession for the purpose of sale of any potable liquor containing in excess of i per cent, of alcohol by volume, but there was no attempt to charge this offense in the indictment. The offenses named ih articles 666 and 667 are not the same. Henson v. State, 103 Tex. Cr. R. 123, 280 S. W. 592; Estell v. State, 91 Tex Cr. R. 481, 240 S. W. 913; Huddleston v. State, 103 Tex. Cr. R. 108, 280 S. W. 218; McNeil v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 259, 247 S. W. 536.

The liquor found in appellant’s possession is referred to by the witnesses as “home brew.” The state introduced evidence that it contained more than 1 per cent, of alcohol by volume, and apparently centered its efforts to make out a case such as might have been charged under article 667, P. C. The court instructed the jury that “intoxicating liquor included any potable liquor containing in excess of 1 per cent, of alcohol by volume,” and that, unless the home brew found in appellant’s possession contained in excess of 1 per cent, of alcohol by volume, he should be acquitted. The court declined to amend his charge in the particulars mentioned, over proper written objection that such instructions were incorrect under the indictment and authorized a conviction for an offense which the indictment did not undertake to charge. The Estell Case, supra, is direct authority upon the point sustaining appellant’s contention.

From the record it is apparent appellant has been convicted for an offense for which he was not indicted. A count charging the offense under article 667, P. C., might properly have been placed in the indictment, but in its absence the charges given were erroneous, and the conviction cannot stand.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded. 
      (S=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     