
    ALLEN v. STATE.
    (No. 12907.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 15, 1930.
    Murchison & Davis, of Haskell, for appellant.
    A. A: Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

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

The conviction was under the count charging possession of intoxicating liquor for sale. The witness Purvis testified that he got 20 gallons of whisky from appellant in-December. Witness Cousins testified that, on the date in December referred to by Mr. Purvis, Purvis delivered to him 20 gallons of whisky. Witness ligón testified that he bought whisky from appellant four times in the latter part of the summer before the sale testified to by Purvis. The testimony seems amply sufficient.

There are two bills of exception. The first complains of the action of the court in permitting the witness Purvis to state upon redirect examination by the state his reason for not arresting appellant at the time the sale of whisky was made. The bill shows that appellant’s attorney asked him if it was not true that he did not then arrest appellant. The subject having been broached by appellant, the state had' the right to call for the explanation. We might observe that the only thing stated by the witness in reply to this question, was that he was acting under cover, and expected to come back and make other purchases, and to have arrested appellant at the time would have made it impossible for him to have discovered anything else.

Bill No. 2 shows that, after the evidence was closed and before the reading of the court’s charge, appellant moved the court to withdraw from the jury, and instruct them that they could not consider, the testimony •of the state witness Ligón. The action of the trial court in this regard was entirely prop•er. No request had been made for an election on the part of the state as between' transactions, and apparently no election made, and for all we know from this record the state might have been relying entirely upon the testimony of Ligón and the transaction testified to by Ligón, to make out its case in chief.

No error appearing, the judgment will be affirmed.  