
    PEOPLES v. STATE.
    (No. 10981.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 8, 1927.
    1. Arrest <&wkey;63(3) — Where defendant was staggering under influence of intoxicating liquor, arrest without warrant held proper.
    Where defendant was staggering under the influence of intoxicating liquor, held that officers were authorized to arrest him without a warrant.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;>394 — Evidence secured by officers on search after arrest without warrant held admissible when arrest was authorized.
    Where officers were authorized in arresting defendant because he was staggering under the influence of intoxicating liquor, evidence secured by search of his baggage after arrest held admissible.
    3. Criminal law <&wkey;>4l% 420(3) — Evidence, in liquor prosecution, of telephone call informing officers of man with whisky, held admissible under doctrine of probable cause, authorizing arrest without warrant.
    • Evidence, in prosecution for possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of' sale, of a telephone call informing officers who arrested defendant to be on lookout for man with whisky in his possession, held admissible under the doctrine of probable cause authorizing an arrest without a warrant.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Harrison County; P. O. Beard, Judge.
    Judge Peoples was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, and be appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Lane & Lane, of Marshall, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   BAKER, J.

The appellant was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, and his punishment assessed at one year in the penitentiary.

The record discloses that the officers ins Marshall had information from Shreveport on the night of the alleged offense that “a fellow was on the train with some whisky,” and that, when the train arrived in Marshall,! they observed appellant staggering under thei influence of whisky and carrying with him a) large basket, about two feet long and four-i teen inches wide, and . a hand bag. The offi-t cers immediately arrested appellant, placed him in an automobile, and took him to the city jail. After appellant had been placed in jail, he requested one of the officers to hand him a bag of bananas out of the basket that he had been carrying, and the officer, upon going to the basket, discovered .therein a gallon jug and three quart bottles filled with whisky. Two half pint bottles of whisky were found on the person of appellant, and whisky was also found in the hand bag. The appellant testified in the case, and admitted that he bought the two half pint .bottles of whisky found on his person in New Orleans, but denied any knowledge of the whisky found in the basket and hand bag, testifying! that a passenger on the train had asked him to look after these pieces of baggage, and that, when the train reached Marshall, appellant’s ■ detination, the unknown passenger, had failed to reappear, so he decided to keep the luggage until the owner called for it.

The record contains three bills of exception.

Bills 1 and 3 complain of the action of the court in permitting the state to introduce in evidence the testimony of the offi-t cers relative to the finding of the whisky the objection being that the officers did not have a search warrant at the time of the arrest and search. The court qualifies bill No. 3 by stating that, when appellant was ar-, rested, he was staggering. We are of the opinion that under the facts of this case the officers were authorized to arrest appellant without a warrant, and that the right to search followed the arrest. Manriques v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 291 S. W. 231; Sandoval v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 293 S. W. 168; Reynolds v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 293 S. W. 178.

Bill No. 2 complains of the action of the court in permitting the state to prove by} the officers that they had received information over the telephone from Shreveport to be on the lookout for a man who had whisky in his possession; it being contended that this testimony Involved a conclusion and' hearsay statement of a third party made out of the appellant’s presence. This bill, as pre-r sented, fails to show any error authorizing this court to reverse the case. Furthermore, this evidence was admissible under the doctrine of probable cause authorizing an arrest without a warrant.

Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed, j

PER GURIAM. 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. 
      @=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     