
    BARNETT v. STATE.
    (No. 9380.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 24, 1925.)
    I. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;233(2) — Admission of testimony as to finding liquor and mash on accused’s premises held proper.
    In prosecution for unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor, in which defense was that accused had liquor for medicinal purpose, admitting testimony of sheriff that he found whisky and mash on accused’s premises, and permitting state to have accused testify on cross-examination that he left whisky on his premises, was proper, as tending to show intent of accused, and to contradict defense.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;>l 159(3) — Findings of jury on issues properly submitted under appropriate instructions held binding on appeal.
    In prosecution for unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor, findings of jury, based on conflicting evidence, on issues properly submitted under appropriate instructions, are binding on appeal.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Jasper County; V. H. Stark, Judge.
    Osborn Barnett was convicted of the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor, and be appeals.
    Affirmed.
    G. E. Richardson, of Jasper, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover G. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., for the State.
   BAKER, J.

The appellant was tried and convicted in the district court of Jasper county for unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor, and his punishment assessed at three years in the penitentiary.

The undisputed facts, in this case show that the sheriff found in the appellant’s car six quarts and one pint of whisky while upon the public road, and that, upon a search of the premises of the appellant, there was found about a gallon of whisky and equipment for manufacturing same. The facts in this case relative to the whisky in question are undisputed by the appellant, but his defense was that he had same for medicinal purposes.

There are two bills of exception in the record alleging errors committed by the trial court. The first bill complains at the action of the court in permitting the state to have the sheriff, Bishop, testify:

“I found a gallon of whisky in his smokehouse and a mash barrel — a barrel that had mash in it —and a 50-gallon oil drum that was in the smokehouse.”

And in bill No. 2 it is complained at the action of the court in permitting the state, on cross-examination of the defendant, to have him testify that he left about a gallon of whisky in his smokehouse:

“I left the implements I made that stimulant with; I say I left it there with the stuff I made,” etc.

The objection to said testimony was because it was prejudicial, and was testifying to another and different offense which was self-incriminative. The issue in the case upon the part of the state being that the appellant was transporting the whisky in violation of the law, and upon the part of the defendant that it was for medicinal purposes, we think this' evidence was admissible on behalf of the state’s contention as a circumstance going to show the intent of the appellant, and as tending to contradict his theory that he was only transporting the whisky^ for medicinal purposes, and believe the court committed no error in admitting same. ' The issues in the case were for the jury, and same were properly submitted by the court under appropriate instructions, which the jury decided against the contention of the appellant in this case, and which findings of the jury are binding on this court.

After a careful examination of the record, we are of the opinion that the record fails to disclose any error in the trial of this cause, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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. 
      <&wkey;>Por-other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     