
    RODRIGUEZ v. STATE.
    (No. 10085.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 7, 1926.)
    1. Automobiles <&wkey;355 — Testimony of state’s witness held insufficient to overcome other testimony showing automobile driver was intoxicated.
    In prosecution for driving an automobile while intoxicated, that state witness stated that he did not observe anything in defendant’s conduct to indicate that defendant' was otherwise than normal held insufficient to overcome other testimony showing that defendant was in fact intoxicated.
    2. Automobiles <S=»354 — Evidence as to finding bottle .of tequila and soda water bottle at place of collision held admissible in prosecution for driving automobile while intoxicated.
    In prosecution for driving automobile while intoxicated, resulting in collision with other cars, evidence that a little time after collision bottle of tequila and a soda water bottle and a stopper, which had blood on it, were found at place wfiere collision took place, was not inadmissible as being too remote or without probative force, where defendant testified that bottle contained tequila and that he threw it out of car and that he had a stopper in it.
    ©r^oFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes 2S2 S.W. — Í5
    Appeal from District Court, San Patricio County; T. M. Cox, Judge.
    Francisco Rodriguez was convicted of driving an automobile on a public highway while under influence of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    B. D. Tarlton, of Corpus Christi, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Byles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction in district court of San Patricio county for driving an automobile on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at a fine of $100 and 30 days in the county jail.

There are three bills of exception, two of which complain of the refusal of the court to instruct a verdict for the defense. We have carefully reviewed the record and are of opinion that same shows sufficiently that appellant was under the influence of intoxicants at the time he drove the car in question; also, that the evidence sufficiently showed that appellant was the driver of- said car on the occasion in question; also, that the fact that a state witness used certain expressions, such as that he did not observe anything in the conduct of appellant to indicate that he was otherwise than normal,' would not be sufficient to overcome the other testimony showing that appellant was in fact intoxicated.

The remaining bill of exceptions complains of the introduction in evidence of the fact that some little time after the collision between appellant’s car and two other cars, which led to the arrest and prosecution in this case, a bottle of tequila and a soda water bottle, and a stopper which had blood on it, were found at the place where the collision took place. We are not in accord with the proposition that this evidence was too remote or that it did not have probative force. If we understand the testimony of appellant, he' had in the soda water bottle a brand of tequila called Jose Querva. He also testified that he threw the bottle out of the car on the causeway and that he had in it a tequila stopper.

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