
    Sidney Welk v. The State.
    No. 8097.
    Decided January 16, 1924.
    Rehearing denied March 26, 1924.
    1. —Unlawful Manufacture of Intoxicating Liquor — Companion Case.
    Where the facts and the questions of law are identical in a companion case, and adversely decided to the appellant, the judgment below is affirmed.
    2. —Same—Rehearing.
    Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled for the same reason given for overruling a similar motion in a companion case. Following: Belcher v. State, recently decided.
    Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Dallas. Tried below before the Honorable C. A. Pippen.
    Appeal from a conviction of unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    No brief on file for appellant.
    
      Tom Garrard and Grover C. Morris, Assistants Attorney General, and Shelby S. Cox, District Attorney, for the State.
   HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for the unlawful manufacture of whisky. Punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

This is a companion case to Belcher v. State, No. 8092, this day decided. The facts and the questions of law are identical. The purported bill of exception relative to examination of jurors bears the same notation by the learned trial judge as the bill to the same proceeding in the Belcher case.

For the same reasons given in the opinion in that case the judgment here must be affirmed and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.

ON REHEARING.

HAWKINS, Judge.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled for the same reasons given for overruling a similar motion in Belcher v. State, (No. 8092, opinion on rehearing March 5th,' 1924).

Overruled.  