
    BANKS v. STATE.
    (No. 9803.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 27, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied April 21, 1926.)
    1. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;233(l) — Evidence that witness saw accused near scene of alleged sale of intoxicating liquor, prior thereto, and that after accused left he found jar containing whisky nearhy, held.admissible.
    In prosecution for selling intoxicating liquor, evidence that in field near scene of alleged sale, and prior thereto, witness had seen accused and another, and on their leaving had found some whisky in a fruit jar in nearby field, held properly admitted.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;lll4(2).
    To require consideration, bill of exceptions must be explanatory to such a degree that court may determine from it alone whether ruling complained' of is erroneous.
    3. Criminal law <&wkey;l09l(ll).
    Bill of exceptions which is merely transcription of stenographer’s notes in question and answer form is defective.
    4. Criminal law &wkey;>l 144(12).
    Trial court’s ruling on evidence will be presumed correct, where bill of exceptions complaining thereof is mere recital of objections, not tantamount to certificate of facts.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Bowie County; Hugh Carney, Judge.
    Harvey Banks was convicted for selling intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Sid Crumpton, of Texarkana, and Geo. W. Johnson, of New Boston, for appellant.
    
      Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty,, of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for tire State.
   BAKER, J.

Appellant was convicted in tlie district court of Bowie county for the offense of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment assessed at one year in the penitentiary. The appellant was charged with and convicted for selling a half a gallon of corn whisky to one Charlie Johnson. The state’s contention was, and if believed, showed that the appellant sold the whisky in question to said prosecuting witness Charlie Johnson for the sum of $6. 'It was the contention of the appellant, and he so testified, that he made no such sale and had no conversation relative thereto with said prosecuting witness at the time and place in question.

The record .discloses -five bills of exceptions. Bills 1 and 2, as presented, show no error.

Complaint is made by appellant in bill of exception No. 3 to the action of the court in permitting the state -to prove by the witness Curtwright that on the day of the alleged sale in question, and as we understand the record, near the scene of the alleged sale and prior thereto, he saw appellant and another party near a field, and, after they left, he made some investigation and found some whisky in a fruit jar in áaid field. Appellant contends that this was proving another and different transaction, and in no way connected with the case on trial, and because it was not shown that the defendant knew the whisky was there. As we understand the record, this was not offered for the purpose of showing another and different sale, but was offered for the purpose of showing and connecting the appellánt with whisky néar the scene of the alleged sale, which the state contended was made by him to the witness Charlie Johnson, and to which appellant denied any connection therewith. While this testimony would not be admissible to show an additional sale involving a separate offense, still we think the purpose of showing the appellant’s connection with this whisky near the scene of the alleged sale, and a short time prior thereto, makes the testimony admissible, and there was no error in admitting it. It was also a circumstance in support of the theory of the state tending to connect him with the sale in question. For collation of authorities, see Branch’s Ann. Penal Code, § 166.

Bills of exceptions 4 and 5 complain of the action of the court in refusing to instruct the jury not to consider said testimony of said Curtwright relative to finding the whis-ky above mentioned, and what we have said concerning the admission of said testimony disposes of these bills.

We have carefully examined the entire record, and fail to find that same shows any error of the trial court, and are therefore of the opinion that the judgment should be in all things affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.

PER CURIAM.

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.

On Motion for Rehearing.

MORROW, P. J.

From bill of exceptions No. 1 it is made to appear that, while the witness Charlie Johnson was testifying, the district attorney elicited from him the admission that he had pleaded guilty to a felony and had been given a suspended sentence. The bill does not explain the setting or the surrounding circumstances, and we are unable to determine the relation of the case to the testimony in question. To require consideration, it is essential that the bill of exceptions be self-explanatory to a degree that will enable the court to determine from the bill alone whether in the ruling of which complaint is made error was committed. See Ard v. State, 276 S. W. 263, 101 Tex. Cr. R. 545; Coulson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 277 S. W. 135; Carter v. State, 277 S. W. 395, 101 Tex. Cr. R. 611; Quinn v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 279 S. W. 458; Conger v. State, 140 S. W. 1112, 63 Tex. Cr. R. 327; Walker v. State, 9 Tex. App. 200; and other authorities collated in Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C. § 207. A recital of the objections does not dispense with the necessity of stating the explanatory facts. See Smith v. State, 4 Tex. App. 630; Hennessy v. State, 5 S. W. 215, 23 Tex. App. 365; and other cases collated in Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C. § 209.

Bill. No. 2 is amenable to the faults pointed out with reference to bill No 1, and, in addition thereto, is but a transcription of the stenographer’s notes in question and answer form, and for that additional reason is defective. See Cantrell v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 280 S. W. 595; Montez v. State, 276 S. W. 709, 101 Tex. Cr. R. 582; Soderman v. State, 260 S. W. 607, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 23; Reese v. State, 249 S. W. 857, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 220; Jetty v. State, 235 S. W. 589, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 346.

The substance of bill No. 3 is that a witness saw the appellant and another person standing in the field and that thereafter he found some whisky in a fruit jar in the field. Objection was made that this was not in any way connected with the transaction involved in the trial. This is but in the nature of an objection, and no facts are embraced in the bill from which this court can determine that in receiving the testimony the court committed error. The presumption is in favor of the correctness of the court’s ruling. See Moore v. State, 7 Tex. App. 14; Cavanar v. State, 269 S. W. 1053, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 446. As stated above, a bill, in order to demand consideration, should be complete in itself, and the mere recital of objections is not tantamount tó a certificate of facts.

Bill No. 4 relates to a requested charge apparently touching the same transaction as that to which bill No.' S refers. It is not more specific than is bill No. 3.

The same may be said, of bill No. 5 which relates to the same transaction.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.  