
    C. H. Jackson v. The State.
    No. 9277.
    Delivered March 25, 1925.
    Rehearing denied April 15, 1925.
    1. —Manufacturing Intoxicating liquor — Bills of Exception — Filing of.
    Where the term of court adjourned on Oct. 18th and appellant was granted sixty days after adjournment in which to file statement of facts and bills of exception, and a subsequent order granting additional time in which to file statement of facts, no mention being made of additional time for filing of bills of exception, this court cannot consider bills of exception filed after the expiration of the sixty days originally granted.
    2. —Same—Sufficiency of Evidence.
    Where witnesses testified to finding appellant occupied in running a still in actual operation, and from its worm whisky was running into a barrel nearly half full of the liquor, the evidence supports the verdict, and the cause is affirmed.
    ON REHEARING.
    3. — Same—Amending Orders — Not Permitted.
    After appeal is perfected by the filing of the record in this court, no order of the trial court can be amended, but an omission of an order duly entered, or the correction of an order incorrectly transcribed in the transcript on appeal, may be made by agreement or by a writ of certiorari to have the record here corrected to correspond to the record in' the trial court.
    
      Appeal from the District Court of Archer County. Tried below before the Hon. H. R. Wilson, Judge.
    Appeal from a conviction for manufacturing intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    
      Heyser & Hicks, Davenport, Cummings & Thornton, Richard Dresser and H. R. Bunnenberg, for appellant.
    
      Tom Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover C. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, Judge.

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

The term of the trial court ended October 18th, and in the order overruling the motion for new trial appellant was granted sixty days in which to file a statement of facts and bills of exception. Just prior to the expiration of this sixty day period appellant obtained an order from the court granting him additional time in which to file a statement of facts, which said order contains no mention of the bills of exception. The five bills of exception appearing in this record were each filed on January 13th following the adjournment of court. Manifestly they were filed too late.

Two witnesses testified for the State that they found appellant occupied in working at a part of the machinery of a still which was in operation. The still was of about 150 gallon capacity, and from its worm whiskey was running into a barrel nearly half full of the liquor. Appellant was his own only witness and denied having anything to do with the still, but averred that his presence there was for the sole purpose of getting a drink. The evidence supports the verdict.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

LATTIMORE, Judge

Appellant seeks a rehearing in order that he may have inserted into the order of the trial court extending the time for filing statement of facts and bills of exception, certain things which he now insists were omitted from said order as it appears on the minutes. We know of no way by which the trial court, after appeal and affirmance here, may change his orders made during the trial term. When the record on appeal differs from the record made in the trial court, by agreement, or if necessary by writ of certiorari, this court can have the record here corrected to correspond with the record in the trial court, but we regret that we know of no way by which we can afford appellant the relief sought, and in as much as his contention is based entirely upon that proposition, the motion must be overruled.

Overruled.  