
    STOKES v. STATE.
    (No. 10804.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 24, 1927.
    1. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;>248 — <Affidavit to search private residence for intoxicating liquor must state facts on which affiants base belief that occupant .is violating law.
    Affidavit to search private residence for intoxicating liquor must be made by two credible persons, and set forth facts, on which they base their belief and statement that party whose residence is to be searched is engaged in violation of law.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;394 — Evidence obtained in search of private residence for intoxicating liquor under warrant, issued on affidavit not stating facts, is inadmissible.
    Evidence obtained in search of private residence for intoxicating liquors under warrant, issued on affidavit not setting out facts on which warrant was sought, is inadmissible.
    Lattimore, J., dissenting in part.
    Appeal from District Court, Taylor County; W. R. Ely, Judge.
    Rufus Stokes was convicted- of possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Kirby, King & Overshiner, Harry Tom King and Oliver Cunningham, all of Abilene, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale; punishment, one year in the penitentiary. -

The validity of this conviction depends upon the use of testimony of the finding of certain intoxicating liquor in the private residence of appellant in the execution of a search warrant based on an affidavit made on information and belief. The writer is not in accord with the view entertained by the majority in regard to the requisites of such affidavit. My views are expressed in a dissenting opinion in Chapin v. State (No. 10670) 296 S. W. 1095, opinion handed down June 22, 1927. The majority of the court are of the opinion that an affidavit- to search a private residence in liquor cases'must be made by two credible persons, and must set forth the facts upon which such affiants base their belief and statement that the party whose residence is to be searched is engaged in a violation of law. The opinion of the majority controls. Eor the reason that the affidavit in this case does not set out the facts on which the search warrant was sought, the testimony became inadmissible ■under the provisions of our search and seizure law.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded. 
      <i&wkey;For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     