
    BLALOCK v. STATE.
    (No. 9880.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 3, 1926.)
    1. Criminal law &wkey;>364(4).
    Statement of accused to officers just after he was arrested, and while he was at still where liquor was being manufactured, held admissible as part of res gestas.
    2. Intoxicating liquors <§=w233(l)— Evidence that, ,pe.rson not shown connected with still wás found about 100 yards away with fruit jars held admissible.
    Evidence that certain person was found about 100 yards from still, together with a lot of fruit jars; held admissible tó show parties who were present, even though no connection was shown between that person and still or between him and fruit jars.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Titus County; R. T. Wilkinson, Judge.
    Virgil Blalock was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he. appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Seb. P. Caldwell, of Mt. Pleasant, for appellant.
    ■ Sahi. D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat ..Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   BERRY, J.

The offense is manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and the punishment is one year in the penitentiary.

Appellant by his bills of exceptions Nos. 1 and 3 objects to the introduction of a statement made by him to the officers upon the ground,that he was under arrest. The statement was'made, just after he was arrested and while he was at the still where the liquor in question was being manufactured. It sheds light on the transaction under investigation, and, being made before he left the scene where the offense was committed and coincident with its commission, it was admissible as a part of the res gestse. Coburn v. State, 255 S. W. 613, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 25; Calloway v. State, 244 S. W. 549, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 506; Plunk v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 274 S. W. 156.

By various other bills of exceptions appellant complains at the introduction of testimony by the officers, to the effect that they found one Paul Riddle about 100 yards from the still, and also found a lot of fruit jars out where Paul Riddle was. The objection is that no connection was or had been shown between Riddle and the still or between Riddle and the fruit jars. ' We think the objection to this testimony was properly overruled. It was admissible to show the different parties who were presént and in the immediate vicinity where the offense was alleged to have been committed.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is in all things affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal appeals and approved by the court.  