
    Jake Hill v. The State.
    No. 7950.
    Decided December 12, 1923.
    Transporting Intoxicating Liquor — Insufficiency of the Evidence.
    Where, upon trial of unlawfully transporting] intoxicating liquor, the evidence showed that defendant did not carry the liquor off of his premises, but brought it out and gave it to the State’s witnesses who drank it the same showed no violation of the law against transporting intoxicating liquor. Following Warren v. State, 250 S. W. Rep., 429.
    ■ Appeal from the District Court of Bowie. Tried below before the Honorable Hugh Carney.
    Appeal from a conviction of transporting intoxicating liquor; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    W. W. Arnold, for appellant.
    Cited cases in opinion.
    
      Tom Garrard and Grover C. Morris, Assistants Attorney General, for the State.
   MORROW, Presiding Judge.

— The The offense is the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years.

Prom the State’s testimony it appears that the witness Davis and two companions, in the afternoon just after Christmas, were on the public road passing the home of the appellant. They drove up in front of his house, backed their car up to the gate and asked the appellant if he had anything to drink. He brought out and gave to them about four ounces of white corn whisky, which they drank. Appellant did not carry the liquor off of his premises.

The State’s Attorney concedes that the facts do not show a violation of the law against the transportation of intoxicating liquor. The facts are not dissimilar from those reviewed in Warren’s case, 94 Texas Crim. Rep., 243, 250 S. W. Rep., 429, in which the evidence was held insufficient to support the verdict. Por the same reason the judgment in the present case is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.  