
    Mart SMITH v. STATE.
    (No. 9259.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 25, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 3, 1926.)
    Appeal from District' Court, Shelby County; Chas. L. Braehfield, Judge.
    D. R. Taylor, of Center, and J. R. Bogard, of San Augustine, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   BERRY, J.

The appellant was convicted in the district court of Shelby county for the offense of transporting liquor, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of three years. There is found in the record what appellant claims is a motion in arrest of judgment, which contains some ten different complaints at various actions of the court; same ranging all the way from criticisms of the court’s charge to the jury to the failure of the jury to take sufficient time to deliberate on the case. This identical paper is also found in the record, and called defendant’s motion for a new trial. None of the complaints set out in either of said papers are based on bills of exception taken during the trial to the court’s action in receiving or excluding testimony, or to his action in giving or refusing any charges to the jury. There are some five bills of exception shown, however; but these bill do no more than to take up the separate paragraphs of the motion for a new trial and complain at the court’s action in overruling the same. Under this state of the record, we are forced to conclude that there is nothing before us calling for a reversal of the case. We have examined the statement of facts very carefully, and, while we do not commend the practice of the peace officers in going to appellant’s home at night and encouraging and soliciting him to violate the law, yet, under the facts disclosed by the record, we cannot do otherwise than hold that the testimony is sufficient to show an unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor. Finding no error in the record, it is our opinion that the judgment should be 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.

On Motion for Rehearing.

LATTIMORE, J.

It is insisted in appellant’s motion that his transportation was instigated by officers and that for such reason his conviction should not be upheld. The testimony of the state shows that a deputy sheriff went to appellant to know if he could let him have any whisky and appellant told the officer that he knew where he could get some, and made arrangement to go with him on a certain date. Later the officer went back and appellant got in the car with the officer and drove to a point where they procured liquor. While on their way to this point appellant took out of his pocket a bottle of whisky. Apparently for his transportation of this bottle this conviction was had. It was in evidence that upon appellant’s premises on the occasion in question were found a large number of bottles and containers manifesting the presence of small quantities of liquor. We have no doubt of the correctness of the verdict of the jury or of the opinion of this court already handed down.

The motion for rehearing will be overruled.  