
    INNESS v. STATE.
    (No. 10309.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 8, 1926.)
    1. Intoxicating liquors ©=>233(2)—In prosecution for transporting Jamaica ginger, labels on bottles taken from defendant held properly admitted.
    In prosecution for transporting intoxicating liquor, particularly Jamaica ginger, introduction in evidence of labels on bottles found in defendant’s possession held not error, particularly in view of other testimony to all matters contained in the labels.
    2. Witnesses ©=>345(2) — Cross-examination showing that witness for defendant had recently been drunk and arrested for drunkenness held improper.
    In prosecution for possession of intoxicating liquor, cross-examination of a witness for defendant, to show that he had' recently been drunk and arrested for drunkenness, held improperly permitted.
    3. Criminal law ©=>784(1)—Evidence, in prosecution for transporting liquor, held to require instruction on circumstantial evidence.
    In prosecution for transporting liquor, evidence that deputy sheriff saw defendant in front-of bank, that he left his 'office, and rushed over to office back of bank, and there again saw defendant standing beside a table, and on searching him found four bottles of Jamaica ginger., and saw two others on the table, held to require-instruction on circumstantial evidence.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Shelby County ; R. T. Brown, Judge.
    Roy Inness was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Sanders & Sanders, of Center, for appellant.
    
      Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeek, for the State.
   BETHEA, J.

The appellant was convicted .in the district court of Shelby county for the offense of transporting intoxicating liquor, and his punishment assessed at one year in the penitentiary. He filed his motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and he in due time gave notice of appeal, and the case is now properly before this court for review.

The facts, briefly stated, are that on or about January 3, 1926, he was first seen by the witness Zack'Booth, a deputy sheriff, on the sidewalk talking to a negro. The next time the witness saw the defendant he was going up a stairway that led up to an office back of a certain bank. The facts further disclose that the witness Booth just had time enough to run over there from the sheriff’s office, and followed tlje appellant up the stairs, where he found him in a room with a negro. There he searched the appellant’s person and found four bottles of Jamaica ginger, or “Jake.” The witness stated that he afterwards found two more bottles on a table in the room where he had searched the the appellant. The appellant was standing by the table. This is all the evidence, disclosed by the statement of facts shedding any light upon the transportation of said “Jake” or Jamaica ginger.

Appellant, by his bill of exceptions No. 3, challenges the right of the state to introduce in evidence labels upon the bottles, found in his possession, showing the contents. We think this shows no error in the action of the trial court as complained of in said bill, and especially in view of the fact that the record discloses that the state’s witness fully testified to all the matters contained in the labels, and in view of the fact that the bottles as introduced in evidence were in the same condition with the labels on them as they were when taken off of the appellant. There could have been no possible injury done under such circumstances to the appellant in this case. Norton v. State, 102 Tex. Cr. R. 213, 277 S. W. 141.

Appellant, by his bill of exceptions No. 6, complains that, while the witness Sam Davis, a witness for the defendant, was on the witness stand, the prosecuting attorney, on cross-examination, asked the witness the following question: “I will ask you, Mr. Davis, if you have not been drunk and arrested for drunkenness here in town recently?” to which the witness answered, over the objection of appellant, as follows: “Yes; that he had been drunk and arrested for drunkenness.” This court has held many times that the arrest or conviction for drunkenness does not impute moral- turpitude; therefore the learned trial judge was in error in permitting the prosecuting attorney on cross-examination to prove that the witness had been arrested and convicted for drunkenness. See Ashcraft v. State, 103 Tex. Cr. R. 114, 280 S. W. 209, and authorities therein cited.

In view of another trial of this case we desire to call the.court’s attention to the fact that he should have charged the" jury on circumstantial evidence, as pointed out by appellant, both in his exceptions and objections to the court’s charge and in his bill of exceptions No. 7. The facts show that the first time the deputy sheriff saw the defendant he was in front of the bank; he then left his office and rushed over there, and the second time he saw the defendant he was upstairs with the negro, standing by the table, at which time he searched the defendant and found on him four bottles of “Jake,” or Jamaica ginger, and two more sitting on the table. The statement of facts in this case fails to show, except by circumstances, as just detailed above, that the defendant transported the said “Jake” or Jamaica ginger.

For the errors above pointed out, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded.

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