
    WILLIAMS v. STATE.
    No. 18825.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 13, 1937.
    Rehearing Denied Dec. 15, 1937.
    Early & Johnson and J. Edward Johnson, of McCartney, McCartney & Johnson, all of Brownwood, for appellant.
    Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for violating the liquor laws of this State; punishment, a fine of $400.

The contentions made in this case, and the facts herein, as well as the legal questions involved, are similar to those decided in Stevens v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 110 S.W. 2d 906, opinion this day handed down. For the reasons therein stated, the judgment in this case is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant insists in an able and exhaustive motion that we were in. error in our original opinion herein where we held that the two liquor inspectors, who were the persons alleged to have purchased the liquor from appellant, were not accomplices.

Practically the same facts and propositions were presented to this court in the case of Stevens v. State, 110 S.W.2d 906, and in. an opinion recently delivered, not yet reported [in State Report], this court held that such a class of witnesses, under a similar state of facts as is presented here, were not accomplices. In that case, on motion for rehearing, both Presiding Judge Morrow and Judge Hawkins wrote, reaffirming the doctrine laid down therein, and since such time, in the case of Wooldridge v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 111 S.W.2d 248, and Park v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 111 S.W.2d 249, opinions this day handed down, such position has again been announced.

We can see no good reason to write further in the matter. We think these decisions announce a sound proposition of law, and in consonance therewith appellant’s motion for a rehearing is overruled.  