
    LUMUS v. STATE.
    (No. 7126.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 4, 1923.
    Rehearing Denied May 2, 1923.)
    Criminal law <&wkey;S70>(6) —Indictment and information <&wkey;l33(IO) — Objection that indictment is duplicitous cannot be first made in motion for arrest of judgment, but must be made by motion to quash.
    An objection to an indictment because it is duplicitous cannot be raised for the first time by a motion in arrest of judgment, but must be made by motion to quash.
    Appeal from District Court, Limestone County; A. M. Blackmon, Judge.
    Tom Lumus was convicted for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. E. Bradley, W. T. Jackson, Wm. Kennedy, and Robt. M. Lyles, all of Groesbeck, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Ira Lawley, of Groesbeck, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for manufacture of intoxicating liquor, punishment, one year in the penitentiary.

The evidence is amply sufficient to support the verdict. No bills of exception appear in the record. The indictment charged in one count the manufacture, the possession for sale, and the sale of intoxicating liquor. Conviction is for the manufacture only. The indictment is duplicitous. See Todd v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 99, 229 S. W. 515. No motion in limine to quash the indictment was presented. After conviction, a motion in arrest of judgment was filed, attacking the indictment for duplicity. This question cannot be raised for the first time by motion in arrest of judgment, but must be by motion to quash. See Melley v. State (No. 7185), 248 S. W. 367, original opinion November 8, 1922, on rehearing February 28, 1923; Kocich v. State, (No. 7095), 249 S. W. 494, original opinion February 7, 1923,

The judgment is affirmed. 
      @=3For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     