
    DAVIS v. STATE.
    (No. 7516.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 14, 1923.)
    Intoxicating liquors <s^236(20')— Evidence held sufficient to support conviction for unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor.
    Testimony of prosecuting witness that he purchased whisky from accused, which was transported by accused to place of delivery to prosecuting witness, was sufficient to sustain conviction for unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor.
    Appeal from District Court, Fisher County; W. R. Chapman, Judge.
    W. B. Davis was convicted of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    W. B. Ferrell, of Roby, and Stinson, Coombes & Brooks, of Abilene, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, P.' J.

The conviction is for the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

The witness McCoombs saw the appellant, Singleton, and Stiff leaving the town of Roby and going east on the Hamlin road. He telephoned to the sheriff of Fisher county, and a warrant was obtained to search the car in which the parties named were riding. The automobile was found by the officers in possession of the search warrant on the road. It was out of running order, and had stopped. Singleton and Stiff were at the car. as was also a mechanic who was working on it. The appellant was not there, and was^ not seen by the officers who made the search. Twenty-four Quarts of whisky were found in the car.

Singleton was used by the state as a witness, and testified that he had asked the appellant if he knew where they might get some whisky; that appellant said that if he found any one having whisky to sell he would let them know. Singleton told him he wanted three gallons, and the appellant said that a boy would furnish it, but that they would have to go 15 miles after it; that the boy would not furnish less than five gallons. Eater, after waiting for the boy to appear with the whisky and his failing to do so, Singleton and Stiff got in their car, and appellant later joined them at the filling station. He stated that he did not care to ride with them through the town, as it might look suspicious. After traveling a certain distance, the appellant got out of the car, and Singleton and Stiff drove on. Later, according to Singleton’s testimony, they were overtaken by the appellant and another party, whom Singleton had not previously seen and whom he could not identify. Quoting Singleton, he said:

“He and another party overtaken us; we stopped when they overtook us. He did not deliver anything there; he never got out of the car. We got from them six gallons of whisky; it was in tow sacks, all I ever saw; 1 never opened it. As to whether they put that whisky in our car, we were coming this way, and they drove up on this side of us, and when I got out and Ray got out, the driver was on this side, and ho got out, and he handed us the stuff, and we put it in our car. That was where I was having the car repaired; we were still standing there when the sheriff and his deputy came out.”

Singleton said that he had given his part of the money ..to Stiff to pay for the whisky; that he paid $14 a gallon for it; that the only arrangements he had made to get whis-ky was with the appellant; and that the appellant told him he was not selling whisky, and did not have any.

If we properly comprehend the evidence, it supports the finding of the jury that the appellant and another person transported six gallons of whisky from some point not identified to the place where it was delivered to the witnesses Singleton and Stiff. The conversation between the appellant and the witness Singleton, in connection with the fact that he was in company with the unidentified person described by Singleton, is sufficient to support the finding of the jury that the appellant was a principal actor in committing the offense. There is no complaint of the manner in which the issue was submitted to the jury, and on the evidence found in the record we find no warrant for this court to disturb the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      <S=oFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     