
    HOLMES v. STATE.
    (No. 7182.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 8, 1922.)
    (. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;236( 11) — Evidence held to sustain conviction for selling.
    Evidence held to sustain conviction for selling intoxicating liquor.
    2. Criminal law &wkey;l 159(3) — Conflicts in evidence are for the jury.
    Conflicts in evidence are for the jury, and the judgment should be upheld, unless there is such doubt as to the correctness of the jury’s conclusion as to make the appellate court believe that they were actuated by passion or prejudice, or that the decision was not the result of fair and deliberate consideration.
    Appeal from District Court, Ellis County; W. L. Harding, Judge.
    Carl Holmes was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Ellis county of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.

There are no bills of exception in the record, and the only complaint of appellant appears to be directed at the insufficiency of the testimony. We. have carefully gone over the facts as stated by the various witnesses. It seems practically without controversy that appellant sold something in a pint bottle to George Forbes on the occasion in question, and that Forbes gave him a check for it. Later Forbes directed the bank not to pay the cheek, and same was not paid. Upon the question as to whether the article sold was whisky, there appears in the record the testimony of a number of witnesses, who examined and tasted it and stated that it was whisky. Appellant himself in his testimony referred to it repeatedly as whisky. He claimed to have purchased two bottles of it from a negro, and that he let Forbes have one bottle, and, after having imbibed a portion of the contents of the other bottle, he said he threw it away. Forbes testified that in his opinion the bottle that he bought from appellant contained some whisky, but was mostly water and sugar, but he said the other bottle contained good whisky, and that appellant gave him a drink from the other bottle. Conflicts in the testimony are for settlement at the hands of the jury, and, unless there be such doubt of the correctness of their conclusion as to make us believe that they were actuated by passion or prejudice, or to convince us that their decision was not the result of a fair and deliberate consideration, it-will be our duty to uphold the judgment. We think the testimony am- ' ply supports their conclusion. A greater number of witnesses testified to the fact that the liquor irf question was whisky than those who seemed to indicate any doubt of said fact.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed. 
      «gx^jFor other coses see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     