
    WRIGHT v. STATE.
    (No. 10014.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 17, 1926.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;l 120(4) — Bill of exceptions complaining of refusal to exclude evidence held not entitled to consideration, where evidence was not described, and bill did not show that evidence was obtained illegally.
    Bill of exceptions complaining of refusal to exclude evidence held not entitled to consideration, where it contained no sufficient description of evidence sought to be excluded, and did not show that evidence was obtained in violation of law or Constitution.
    2. Searches and seizures <&wkey;3 — Statute, forbidding search of certain premises, cannot be extended to include premises other than those specifically described (Acts 39th Leg, [1925] c. 149; Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 25).
    Acts 39th Leg. (1925) c. 149, forbidding search of certain premises without search warrant, cannot be extended under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 25, to include premises other than those specifically described in the statute.
    3. Witnesses <&wkey;845(i).
    Person testifying may be asked for purpose of impeachment, whether he has not been convicted of a felony or an offense imputing moral turpitude.
    4. Witnesses &wkey;>359.
    Where witness denies prior conviction of felony or offense imputing moral turpitude, state my show falsity of such denial.
    5. Criminal law <&wkey;829(l).
    Refusal to give requested special charge covered by main charge is not ground for reversal.
    Appeal from District Court, Archer County; H. R. Wilson, Judge.
    Leo Wright was convicted of possessing equipment to manufacture intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Mathis & Caldwell, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeek, for the State.
   LATTIMORB, J.

Conviction in district court of Archer county for possessing equipment for the purpose of manufacturing intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at five years in the penitentiary.

There are three bills of exception. The first is to the refusal of a motion to exclude evidence. The motion is indefinite and contains no sufficient description of the evidence sought to be excluded. There is in said bill no showing either by direct averment or statement of the facts that the evidence referred to was obtained in violation of any law, or provision of the Constitution. We are not allowed under all the rules and precedents to consider a supposed error in a bill which wholly fails to make plain by its recitals the proposition complained of as erroneous, and fails to set out the-facts supporting saíne.

The language of chapter 149, Acts of 39th Legislature, § 2, goes no further than to forbid search of the “private residence, actual place of habitation, place of business, person or personal possessions,” without search warrant; and we would be without authority to extend the provisions of the statute to other premises than those specifically described. We are commanded by article 25, C. O. P., to so construe, when construction is needful, the provisions of the Code as to attain the objects of the law — the suppression, prevention and punishment of crime. If there was a search in this case, the place searched is not shown by this bill to be one of those named.

Neither of the other bills show error. A person, who is a witness, may be asked, for purposes of impeachment,, if he has not been convicted for a felony or an offense imputing moral turpitude. If he deny it, the state, by proper proof, may show the truth of such statement so denied. Branch’s Annotated P. C. § 167, and collated authorities.

Paragraphs 3 and 5 of the main charge sufficiently cover the proposition embraced in the special charge, the refusal of which is complained of in bill of exceptions No. 3. The evidence amply supports the verdict.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed. 
      <S=sFor other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     