
    RUFONY v. STATE.
    (No. 8217.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 15, 1924.
    Rehearing Denied Nov. 19, 1924.)
    1. Criminal law <@=>1091 (10) — Bills of exception, not showing truth or existence of facts stated as grounds of objection to evidence, defective.
    Bills of exception, merely stating ground of objection to questions and answers, without showing truth or existence of facts stated as grounds, are defective.
    2.- Criminal law <©=>404(4) — Still and whisky, identified by officers as found in house where defendant arrested, held admissible.
    Still and quantities of whisky, identified by officers as those found in house where defendant was arrested, held admissible in prosecution for manufacturing intoxicating liquors, as against objection that no connection was shown between them and defendant.
    3. Witnesses <©=5236(4) — Question held not objectionable as not sufficiently definite, in view of testimony identifying house referred to.
    Reference in question to “that house” held not objectionable, as not sufficiently definite, in view of testimony showing that house referred to was that in which defendant was when officers approached it.
    4. Intoxicating liquors <©=>233(1) — Iceman’s testimony as to.having seen accused around premises for several months held admissible.
    In prosecution for manufacturing intoxicating liquors, iceman’s testimony as to having seen accused around premises, where he delivered ice for several months, held admissible.
    On-Motion for Rehearing.
    5. Intoxicating liquors <©=>236(19) — Conviction of manufacturing held supported by evidence.
    Evidence held sufficient to support conviction of manufacturing spirituous and intoxicating liquors.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Tar-rant County; Geo. E. Hosey, Judge.
    J. B. Rufony was convicted of manufacturing spirituous and intoxicating liquors, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Simpson, Moore & Parker, of Fort Worth, for appellant.
    R. IC Hanger, Dist. Atty., and Julian B. Mastin, and W. II. Tolbert, Asst. Dist. Attys., all of Fort Worth, and Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the criminal district court of Tarrant county of manufacturing spirituous and intoxicating liquors, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of 2 years.

A, number of officers approached a house in Fort Worth, about which they had received information. As they approached same, one Emeriek stuck his head out of a window and hastily withdrew it. In a moment Em-eriek and appellant emerged from the back door of the house, and ran to a toilet some distance east. Some of the officers entered the house, and some went to the toilet and took both Emeriek and appellant in custody. The latter was in his underclothes, and was wet with perspiration. In the house was found a large still and a quantity of mash ' and manufactured liquor. The temperature of the house was found to be very much warmer than on the outside. No one was in the house when the officers entered. Testimony of the iceman, who had been delivering ice at the house for a long time, showed tha he had delivered large quantities there, and that he had seen appellant in and around the house a great many times during the 2 or 3 months prior to the raid in question. A girl who lived in a neighboring house said she had seen him around the house almost constantly during such time. The ease was submitted to the jury on the theory of circumstantial evidence, and we think their conclusion of guilt justified by the facts.

There are 10 bills of exception in the record. A number of them are defective in that they merely state the ground of ob-„ jection made to the asking of certain questions and the reception of the answers thereto ; there being nothing in the bill to show the truth or existence of the facts stated as grounds of objection. One bill complains of the introduction in evidence of a still, upon the ground that there had been no connection shown between appellant and said still. It is disclosed that officers identified the still as being the one found by them in the house in question. This is also true of the objection made to the introduction of certain quantities • of whisky which were identified as being that taken from said house.

Reference in a question to “that house” objected to, because not sufficiently definite, is not deemed tenable by us in view of the surrounding testimony showing that the house referred to was that in which appellant and Emeriek were when the officers approached same. We think the examination of the witness Margurite Brownlee by the trial court, testing her knowledge of the effect of an oath and of making false statements, revealed her qualification as a witness.

Two bills of exception directed at testimony of the iceman to the effect that he had seen the accused around the premises, where he delivered ice for 2 or 3 months, do not seem to us to possess merit.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant urges but the proposition that the evidence does not support the verdict. Complaint is made of some verbal inaccuracies which do not affect the conclusions reached. When first seen by the officers, appellant and Emerick were running from the dwelling to a toilet in the back yard, in which they were promptly apprehended. Appellant had on pants, undershirt, and shoes. This clothing is described as being “wringing wet” at the time. The dwelling was what is known as a shotgun house consisting of 3 rooms in a row. No one was at the place except appellant and Emerick, the man who ran into the toilet with him. The contents of the dwelling, as disclosed by this record, consisted of 400 pounds of ice, 4 gallons of whisky in a water bottle, and 2 gallon jugs of whisky, in the front room. In the second room a still sitting on a gasoline stove, the container under the worm of which had whisky in it, 3 barrels of mash, a 5-gallon bottle of whisky, and another bottle partly full of whisky, and an electric fan. The fire was' burning under the still. In the third and last room there were 8 or 9 barrels of mash. By the testimony of 2 witnesses, appellant’s presence in and around said house with frequency and regularity for 2 or 3 months prior to the raid was shown. While it is true no one testified to seeing appellant making the whisky, the circumstances are deemed sufficient to sustain the conclusion of the jury, and the motion for rehearing will be overruled. 
      <§=For other cases see same topic and KiSY-NUMJBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     