
    Townie Prescott v. The State.
    No. 7371.
    Decided June 27, 1923.
    Rehearing denied October 17, 1923.
    1. —Transporting Intoxicating Liquor — Companion Case.
    Where, upon appeal from a conviction of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor, the facts and the law of the case, are identical with the companion case heretofore affirmed, the judgment below will be affirmed.
    2. —Same—Rehearing—Practice on Appeal.
    After again considering the facts in the ease, this court is unable to arrive at any different conclusion from that formerly reached herein, and the motion for rehearing must be overruled.
    Appeal from the District Court of Brazos. Tried below before the Honorable W. C. Davis.
    Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    
      Buffington & Leigh, and Henderson & Ranson, for appellant.
    
      R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
   MORROW, Presiding Judge.

— The conviction is for the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

This is a companion case with that of Szymanski v. State, 95 Texas Crim. Rep., which is reported in 248 S. W. Rep., 380. The appellant Prescott was a companion of Szymanski, and the facts of the two cases are identical; likewise the legal questions involved.

Without reiterating them, an affirmance of the judgment is ordered.

Affirmed.

on rehearing.

October 17, 1923.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

— We have again reviewed the facts in this case and are unable to arrive at any different conclusion from that formerly reached by us. While the car in which the liquor was being conveyed was actually driven by Szymanski, it and its contents seem to have been under the control and direction and in the possession of this appellant, and the facts amply support the proposition that he was equally if not more implicated in the transportation of the liquor in question than anyone else. Nor can we agree to the proposition that there was not sufficient evidence before the jury to justify them in believing the liquor, intoxicating in character.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing will be overruled.

Overruled.  