
    FANNIE WHITE v. STATE.
    No. A-6515.
    Opinion Filed May 25, 1929.
    Rehearing Denied June 15, 1929.
    (277 Pac. 946.)
    
      John L. Ward and L. O. Todd, for plaintiff in error.
    Byron Kirkpatrick, Co. Atty., M. P. Howser, Asst. Co. Atty., and W. L. Coffey, for the State.
   CHAPPELL, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted of having possession of intoxicating liquor, and her punishment fixed at a fine of $200 and costs, taxed at $47.60, and confinement in the county jail for a period of three months.

Upon application for search warrant by the affidavit of J. H. Smitherman, a search warrant was duly issued, and the officers conducting the search found a gallon of whisky and 59 gallons of Choctaw beer in the frame house in the rear of 1421 North Lansing street in the city of Tulsa, which premises were the premises described in the affidavit and search warrant. The defendant was living in a house adjoining the house searched and gave the officers the key to the house searched, which house was owned by the defendant. The officers arrested the defendant, she was convicted of having possession of the intoxicating liquor, and now prosecutes her appeal to this court.

.The first assignment of error questions tbe sufficiency of tbe affidavit for search warrant. Tbe defendant contends that tbe facts as stated in tbe affidavit could not have been known by tbe affiant and contests tbe accuracy of said affidavit.

This court has recently passed upon this precise question in the case of Frank Ray v. State, 43 Okla. Cr. 1, 276 Pac. 785, in which case this court laid down the rule that:

“Where tbe affidavit and search warrant are sufficient on their face, tbe evidence obtained by tbe search is admissible, and tbe court will not permit tbe accused, after tbe warrant bas been executed, to show that tbe statements in tbe affidavit are not true, or to raise any question as to tbe accuracy or source of tbe affiant’s information or tbe means by wbicb it was obtained.”

The defendant contends next that the description of the premises to be searched was insufficient. In the case of Mitchell v. State, 43 Okla. Cr. 163, 277 Pac. 260, this court held:

“Tbe description of tbe premises to be searched is sufficient, if it enable tbe officers executing tbe search warrant to locate tbe premises to be searched without tbe aid of any other information save that contained in tbe search warrant.”

It is a sufficient answer to this objection to say that tbe officers executing tbe warrant located the premises to be searched alone from tbe information contained in tbe search warrant, and that is all that is required. Tbe affidavit for tbe search warrant being sufficient, tbe evidence obtained by tbe search was properly admitted.

The defendant complains that tbe search warrant was addressed to R. D. Sanford, sheriff, and was not served by said Sanford or by any person called bis assistants. The search warrant may be served by the sheriff or any of his deputies. The case-made does not contain the return of the search warrant. The presumption of law being that the officer to whom the writ was directed performed his official duty, this court cannot consider the objection.

The evidence being sufficient to support the verdict, and the errors of law being without merit, the cause is affirmed.

EDWARDS, P. J., and DAVENPORT, J., concur.  