
    NEWMAN v. STATE.
    (No. 8588.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 7, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied March 4, 1925.)
    1. Criminal law <®=n608 — Denial of continuance on ground that defendant’s wife could not appear as witness, because of pregnancy, held not error, in view of physician’s testimony.
    Denial of continuance on ground that defendant’s wife could not be present as witness, because she was about to be confined in childbirth, held not error, in view of physician’s testimony that several months remained before wife would give birth to child, and that wife’s condition was such that she could appear as witness.
    2. Criminal law @=956(5) — Denial of new trial on ground that defendant’s wife had been ! unable to testify, because of pregnancy, held not error.
    Motion for new trial on ground that defendant’s wife had been unable to attend and testify, because about to be confined in childbirth, held properly denied, in view of physician’s testimony that wife at time of trial lacked several months of reaching period of delivery, and that her condition was such that she could have appeared as a witness.
    3. Criminal law @=>364(4)— Statements made by defendant, at time of arrest, as to ownership of still and mash, held admissible.
    In liquor prosecution, statements made by defendant to officer who arrested him that still. and barrels of mash and whisky in barn belonged to him, held admissible as part of res gestse.
    4. Criminal law 4= 1091 (8) — Bill of exceptions, complaining of prosecuting attorney’s remarks as a whole, cannot be considered.
    Bill of exceptions, complaining of prosecuting attorney’s remarks as a whole, cannot be considered.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    5. Criminal law <8=>1086(14) — Bill of exceptions, complaining of admissions of.evidence, held insufficient for failure to disclose objection.
    Bill of exceptions, complaining of reception of testimony, held insufficient for failure to disclose ground of objection made thereto.
    Appeal from District Court, Bosque County; Ii-win T. Ward, Judge.
    Joe Newman was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Levi Herring, of Fairfield, for appellant.
    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 district court of Bosque county of possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale, and his punishment fixed at 1% years in the penitentiary.

A still was found on appellant’s premises, near which was whisky, and in appellant’s barn were found 54 fruit jars of whisky. Appellant stated to the officer who arrested him in his field that this was his whisky and still..

Appellant’s first and second bills of exception complain of the court’s refusal to grant an application for a continuance, and of the refusal of his motion for new trial based on the absence of said witness. The continuance was sought because of the absence of appellant’s wife, it being alleged that she had never been summoned as a witness, but intended to come, and would have been present, but for the fact that she was about to be confined in childbirth. This matter was controverted by the state, and the testimony of a physician presented, from which evidently the trial court concluded that the condition of the wife was not such as to preclude Ter attendance. We have gone into the matter carefully, and are of the opinion that the action of the lower court reveals no abuse of his discretion. The physician testified that the wife lacked several months apparently, both from her statement and his observation, of reaching the period of delivery of the child, and was in such condition as that she could have come to court as a witness.

The third bill of eseeptions complains of the admission in evidence of statements, made by appellant to the officer who arrested him, to the effect that the still and barrels of mash and whisky in the barn belonged to him. In our opinion the statements made by appellant were res gestae. Coburn v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 25, 255 S. W. 613, and authorities cited. The offense charged was possession of intoxicating liquor. The liquor was found in appellant’s barn, in close proximity to his residence. When found, appellant stated that it was his, and in substance that he had it for sale.

The fourth bill of exceptions complains of the address made by the special prosecuting attorney to the jury. The complaint is made,of the remarks as a whole, and the bill cannot be considered in this condition. Most of the address of the attorney to the jury was clearly proper, and this court will not attempt to glean through such a bill, for the purpose of finding if there be remarks to -which objections might have been properly directed.

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

On Motion for Rehearing.

The offense charged was the possession of intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale. The proof showed beyond question the possession of a large quantity of whisky by appellant. Coincident with the finding of the whisky in his possession, appellant, while under arrest, made statements regarding it, and his manufacture of it, and his sale of liquor. The bill of exceptions complaining of the reception of this testimony covers more than a page of the statements made by the officer as to what appellant said to him on that occasion. An examination of said bill discloses that at no place therein is there any statement of the ground of the objection. It is stated in the beginning of the bill that the witness Shannon, “over the objection of the defendant,” was permitted to testify as follows. There then follows the lengthy testimony, at the conclusion of which appears the statement:

“To which action of the court in the admission of said evidence the defendant then and there protested and excepted, and here and now in open court tenders this his bill of exception, and prays that the same be signed,” etc.

If the objection was that the testimony was immaterial and irrelevant, it would be clearly the duty of the court to overrule it. We are left in the dark as to what the objection was. The bill in this condition presents no error.

Appellant attempts in -his motion to differentiate this ease, on its facts, from those cited in support of our opinion. It will be very difficult to find cases in the books which do not differ from the facts of the one at any time before the court. We have no doubt but that the offense of possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale was made- out by the testimony before the court.

Regretting our inability to agree with the contentions made, the motion for rehearing will be overruled. 
      <g=i>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     