
    Hattie Crawford v. The State.
    No. 6409.
    Decided November 2, 1921.
    Rehearing granted November 23, 1921.
    Intoxicating Liquors — Possession of Equipment, etc. — Written Charge — Motion for New Trial.
    Upon appeal from a conviction of having in possession equipment for the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor, the record showed that the amended motion for new trial set up for the first time that no written charge was delivered to the jury; held, that süch omission of giving a written charge in a felony case, is reversible error; and Article 743, Vernon’s C. C. P. would not control, as Article 735, id., requires a written charge by the court in a felony case, and the matter can be raised in a motion for new trial for the first time.
    Appeal from the District Court of Kaufman. Tried below before the Honorable Joel R. Bond.
    Appeal from a conviction of unlawful possession of equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquors; penalty; one year imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    
      Cooley & Crisp, for the State.-
    Cited; West 1. State, 2 Texas Crim. App., 209.^
    
      R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
   HAWKINS, Judgr.

Conviction was for having in possession equipment for the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor. Punishment, one year in penitentiary.

No statement of facts or bills of exceptions accompany the record. Judgment was rendered on March 24th, 1921. Two days later a formal motion for new trial was filed, and on the 31st day of March, an amended motion for new trial was filed, in which for the first time it is set up that no “written’.’ charge was delivered to the jury. The fact that such omission occurred is not authenticated in any way, either by bill of exception, or by proof upon hearing of the motion for new trial. In this state of the record, under many authorities, we must affirm this case, because of the absence of bills of exception and statement of facts.

Affirmed„

ON REHEARING.

November 23, 1921.

HAWKTNS, Judge.

Upon consideration of this case originally we were inclined to the view that Article 743, Vernon’s C. C. P. would control; and that a disregard of Article 735, requiring a written charge could not for the first time be raised in the motion for new trial. Upon more mature consideration we reached the conclusion that we were in error. Our opinion in No. 6455, Howard v. State, 90 Texas Crim. Rep., 270, decided November 16, 1921, expresses our convictions contrary to the original holding in this case.

The motion for rehearing is granted, judgment of affirmance is set aside, and for failure to give a written charge, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.  