
    COWLEY v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 3, 1913.)
    1. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 233) — Criminal Prosecutions — Evidence.
    On a trial for selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory, evidence as to the receipt by accused of shipments of liquor about and prior to the time of the alleged sale was admissible to show his possession of the article alleged to have been sold.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 293-297, 298% j Dec. Dig. § 233.]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 338) — Evidence.
    On a trial for selling a half pint of whisky in prohibition territory, where the state showed the receipt by accused of shipments of whisky about and prior to the time of the alleged sale, the waybills for which described the shipments as a specified number of quarts and pints, the testimony of the express agent that he had examined shipments so marked, addressed to other parties, and found them to contain half pint bottles should have been excluded, though, if he had examined any of the shipments addressed to accused and found such condition to exist, he could so testify.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. J§ 752, 753, 755, 756, 787, 788, 801, 855; Dec. Dig. § 338.-]
    3. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 233) — Criminal Prosecutions — Evidence.
    On a trial for selling intoxicating liquor in prohibition territory, where accused testified that he was asked by the prosecuting witness to get him some whisky from D, and that he did so, it was error to exclude evidence of a witness that accused, just prior to the alleged sale, asked him if he knew where D. was, telling him that he wished to get some whisky from D. for a sick person, that he directed accused to D., and that accused left in that direction, and immediately thereafter delivered a half pint of whisky to the prosecuting witness, since this would have strongly supported accused’s theory.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 293-297, 298%; Dec. Dig. § ¿33.]
    4. Criminal Law (§ 814) — Instructions — Conformity to Evidence.
    On a trial for selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory, where, though accused testified that he procured a half pint of whisky from D. for the prosecuting witness, there was no evidence that in doing so he was D.’s agent, an instruction that if he unlawfully sold such liquor as the agent of D. he was guilty, was improperly given.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1821, 1833, 1839, 1860, 1865, 1883, 1890, 1924, 1979-1985, 1987; Dec. Dig. $ 814.]
    5. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 169) — Criminal Prosecutions — Sales—Acting as Purchaser’s Agent.
    A person who was not interested in a sale of whisky at the time of the prosecuting witness’ demand therefor and its delivery to him, but who merely acted as such witness’ agent in procuring the whisky was not guilty of selling it.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 187, 188; Dec. Dig. § 169.].
    Appeal from District Court, Bowie County ; H. F. O’Neal, Judge.
    John Cowley was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    J. S. Crumpton, of New Boston, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was prosecuted and convicted of selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory, and his punishment assessed at one year’s confinement in the penitentiary.

Appellant earnestly insists that the evidence in this case will not sustain a conviction. To this we cannot agree, but think the evidence offered in behalf of the state ample to justify a conviction, but, as it will be necessary to reverse the case on other grounds, we will not give it in detail, nor discuss it further.

The state proved by the agent of the express company at New Boston that appellant received and receipted for the following shipments of liquor about and prior to the time he is charged with having made a sale in this case: October 12, 12 quarts of whisky; October 13, 12 quarts of whisky; October 19, 12 quarts of whisky; October 20, 12 quarts of whisky; October 26, 120 pints of beer; November 4, 24 pints of whisky; November 13, 12 quarts of whisky; November 21, 24 pints of whisky. This testimony was objected to. This question has often been before this court, but finally it was determined that it was admissible to show that appellant was in possession of the article alleged to have been sold. See Wagner v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 307, 109 S. W. 169; Starbeck v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 192, 109 S. W. 162; Myers v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 558, 108 S. W. 392. Since the rendition of those opinions this has been the unbroken line of decisions in this court, and is no longer an open question. However, after proving the reception of this liquor, as the evidence offered in behalf of the state showed the sale of only one-half pint, the state was permitted to show hy the express agent that, although the waybills showed quarts and pints of whisky received, yet he had occasion in the past to examine some packages thus marked, and they would really contain pint and half pint bottles. He was asked if he had examined any packages received by appellant and found this condition to exist, and he answered, “No.” We do not think that what he found in packages addressed to other people, and with which appellant is in no way shown to have had any connection, was admissible against appellant, and the court erred in permitting the witness to thus testify. If he examined packages addressed to appellant and found such condition to exist, he could so- testify.

Defendant testified that the prosecuting witness had approached him and asked him to get him some whisky from Oliver Daniels, and that he did procure the whisky from Oliver Daniels. He offered to prove by Milam Johnson the following facts, as shown by the bill: “That on or about 3:30 or 4 o’clock on the day of the alleged sale, defendant approached witness, and asked witness if he knew where Oliver Daniels was, also stating to witness that he wished to get some whisky from Daniels for an old negro who was sick. That witness directed defendant to Daniels. That defendant left witness in the direction of Daniels. And that immediately thereafter the defendant delivered to witness John Smith one half pint of whisky.” This all took place prior to the alleged sale, and would have a strong tendency to support appellant’s theory of the ease. When he testified that he went in search of Oliver Daniels and got the whisky from him and delivered it to the prosecuting witness, if Milam Johnson knew as a fact that appellant was searching for Oliver Daniels, and went in the direction where Oliver Daniels then was, and immediately thereafter delivered the whisky to the prosecuting witness, we cannot understand by what rule of law this much of the evidence was excluded, and the court erred in doing so.

What Oliver Daniels may have told the witness Tom Morris would be clearly hearsay and inadmissible, and the court did not err in so holding.

The court instructed the jury: “If, however, you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the agent of Oliver Daniels, and that defendant unlawfully sold the intoxicating liquor described in the indictment to John Smith as such agent of said Daniels, in Bowie county, Tex., on or about November 23, 1912, then, in that event, if you so believe beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant would be guilty, and you should so find.” As there was no evidence raising the issue that, if appellant did procure the whisky from Oliver Daniels, he was the agent of Daniels, this part of the charge should not have been given ; but, under the facts of this case, the issue was correctly presented in the following special charge, requested by appellant: “You are instructed the law to be that if defendant at the time of the delivery of this whisky, and of the demand therefor, the defendant was not interested in said sale, but was merely acting at the time as agent for the purchaser of said whisky, you will acquit him.” While this special charge may be said to have been sufficiently covered by the charge, as given, if the above excerpt presenting the reverse of the special charge had not been given, yet, as there was no evidence that appellant was the agent of Oliver Daniels, the charge, as given, was erroneous.

The remainder of the motion for a new trial presents no error.

Reversed and remanded.  