
    COBB v. STATE.
    (No. 9106.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 20, 1925.
    Appeal Reinstated June 26, 1925.)
    I.Bail <©=>66 — Appeal dismissed, where recognizance incorrectly states offense of which appellant was convicted.
    Recognizance, erroneously stating that appellant, convicted of possessing equipment for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, was charged with possessing still, would not support judgment of forfeiture, and appeal -must be dismissed.
    On Reinstatement of Appeal.
    2. Criminal law <©=>596 (1) — Refusal of continuance for want of certain witnesses’ testimony held not error.
    Refusal of continuance for want of testimony of witnesses, one of whom appeared and testified, while other’s testimony that she owned and left an old stove, which defendant did not contend was that used in manufacturing intoxicating liquor, on his premises, would have been merely cumulative, held not error.
    3. Intoxicating liquors <©=>236(19) — Allegations as to articles of equipment possessed by defendant for manufacturing whisky held sufficiently proved.
    Allegations in indictment, enumerating articles possessed by defendant for manufacturing whisky, held sufficiently proved by introduction of all of .them in evidence except stove or furnace, which state’s witnesses testified had fallen to pieces since they took possession of it, but fully described to jury without objection.
    4. Criminal law <©=>723(3), 1171(1) — County attorney’s argument in liquor case held not reversible error.
    In trial for possessing equipment for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, county attorney’s argument, “if you want a new’ generation of bootlég'gers and moonshiners to turn the defendant loose,” held not reversible error, as referring to defendant’s children, who were around him at time, nor prejudicial to him, where he .was given lowest punishment under law.
    5. Criminal law <©=>1184 — Judgment and sentence reformed to conform- to charge in1 indictment.
    In prosecution for possessing equipment for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, judgment of conviction and sentence for possessing still reformed, under Code Or. ,Proc. 1911, art. 938, to conform to indictment.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Yan Zandt County; ’ Joel R. Bond, Judge.
    T. A.. Cobb was convicted of possessing equipment for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and be appeals.
    Judgment reformed and affirmed.
    A. B. Culbertson, of Athens, for appellant. Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grovel O. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for. the State.
   BERRY, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Van Zandt county, under an indictment alleging that he unlawfully possessed equipment for manufacturing spirituous, vinous and malt liquor and medicated bitters capable of producing intoxication ; said equipment being as follows: One furnace, one stove, one boiler, one hollow metal pipe, one barrel, and one trough, and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of one' year.

The recognizance in this ease states that the appellant stands charged with the offense of possessing a still. It is fundamental that the recognizance should correctly state the offense for which the appellant has been convicted. The recognizance in this case does not conform to this rule, and in our opinion would not support a judgment of forfeiture, and, because same is defective in the manner above stated, this appeal is dismissed. Appellant will be allowed 15 days from this date to perfect the recognizance in the manner above 'indicated; otherwise this judgment shall become final.

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.

On Reinstatement of Appeal.

BAKER, J.

The appellant was indicted and convicted in the district court of Van Zandt county for the offense of unlawfully possessing equipment for manufacturing intoxicating liquor and his punishment assessed at one year’s confinement in the penitentiary.

This appeal was dismissed at a former day of this court on account of a defective recognizance, which has since been perfected, and it is before us now for consideration upon its merits.

Complaint is made to the action of the court in refusing to grant the appellant’s second application for continuance for the want of the testimony of the witnesses Wallace and Mrs. Carter. The qualification of the court to this bill shows that the witness Wallace appeared and testified-, and that the witness" Mirs. Carter, by whom it is alleged the appellant expected to prove she owned and left an old stove on the premises of the appellant, would have only added, cumulative testimony to much other testimony, that was introduced to the same effect by the appellant from other witnesses, and which stove was not contended by the appellant to be the same stove used as a part of the equipment in manufacturing the intoxicating liquor in question. The bill of exceptions with the court’s qualification thereon, in our judgment, fails to show any error in overruling said motion for continuance.

It is strenuously contended that the court erred in not holding that the articles and equipment alleged to have been used by the appellant as set out in the indictment for manufacturing whisky were not proven by the state to be the same articles introduced in evidence. In other words, it is the contention of the appellant in this' ease, as shown by his charges requested and his exceptions taken to the action of the court in refusing to instruct the jury, that the state, having enumerated the articles constituting the equipment, had failed to prove the allegations in the indictment, "because the stove or furnace was not introduced in evidence as alleged in the ‘ indictment. It appears from the record in this case that all the articles alleged in the indictment were exhibited to the jury and introduced in evidence, except the old stove or furnace which the sheriff and the state’s witnesses testified had fallen to pieces since they had taken possession of it, but the said witnesses for the state fully described it in their testimony to the jury, which went to the jury without any objection upon the part of the appellant. We fail to see any merit in the contention made by the appellant in this instance and believe the ruling and action of the court thereon was proper.

This brings us to the last and only point raised in this appeal which we deem of sufficient importance to discuss, and that is to the action of the county attorney in arguing the case to the jury, in 'which it is alleged that he statedi “If you want a new generation of bootleggers and moonshiners, to turn the defendant loose.” It is contended by the appellant that he had reference to the appellant’s children, who were playing around the defendant at the time said argument was made. We fail to see any reversible error in this particular, and it does not appear from the record that the jury was prejudiced thereby, as the defendant was given the lowest punishment under the law.

The court properly charged the jury on the law of this case as we view it, including the special charges given at the instance of the appellant, and we think the findings of the jury were supported by the testimony in the case, and are of the opinion that the record fails to disclose any error of the trial court, and that said case should be 'affirmed.

The record discloses, however, that the defendant was charged with unlawfully having in his possession equipment for manufacturing spirituous, vinous, and malt liquor and medicated bitters capable of producing intoxication, and the judgment adjudges the defendant guilty of the offense of “possessing a still,” and that the sentence of the court so charges and adjudges the defendant of being “guilty of possessing a still,” which statements in said judgment and said sentence are erroneously entered, and this court, under article 938, O. O. F., hereby reforms said judgment and said sentence each to read that said defendant is adjudged guilty of unlawfully possessing equipment for the manufacture of spirituous liquor capable of producing intoxication, in lieu of said statements therein contained in said judgment and sentence, and, which said judgment and sentence being so reformed and corrected, the judgment of the trial court is hereby reformed and affirmed.

PER CURIAM. Tlie foregoing opinion of tlie Commission of Appeals lias been examined by tbe Judges of tbe Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by tbe court. 
      <©=>For other cases see same topic and KEV-hi UMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes'
     