
    PURSWELL v. STATE.
    (No. 10770.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 11, 1927.
    Rehearing Denied June 8, 1927.
    1. Searches and seizures &wkey;>7(26)— Accused cannot complain of illegal search and seizure, where he was found on.premises of another.
    Right of exemption from search of premises is not available to accused, in prosecution for transporting liquor, where he was found on another’s premises, since right to complain of illegal search and seizure is privilege personal to owner or possessor of premises searched.
    2. Criminal law <@=>394 — Testimony of officers as to search made contemporaneously with arrest of defendant, committing felony in officer’s presence) held admissible, as against objection that they had no warrant (Code Cr. Proc. 1925, arts. 212, 213).
    In prosecution for transporting liquor, testimony of officers as to search when defendant was arrested held admissible, -as against objection that they had no warrant of arrest or search, since evidence of officers as to search made contemporaneously with legal arrest is admissible, and Code Cr. Proc. 1925, arts. 212, 213, permit arrest of one committing felony in presence of officer without warrant.
    3. Criminal law &wkey;>844(l) — Exception to court’s charge must be specific.
    Exception to court’s charge is required by statute to be specific.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    4. Criminal law <@=956(13) — Refusal to grant new trial for jury’s misconduct held proper, in absence of supporting affidavits.
    Refusal to grant motion for new trial, based on jury’s misconduct in considering as circumstance fact that defendant did not testify, held proper, where no affidavit of any juror or other person with knowledge of fact, if it occurred, was attached to motion.
    5. Criminal law <&wkey;l 144(18) — Where judgment denying new trial recited that evidence was heard, reviewing court, in absence of such evidence, will presume it justified action.
    Where judgment denying new trial recited that evidence was heard, it will be presumed that evidence justified court’s action, where such evidence is not brought before reviewing court.
    Appeal from District Court, Liberty County; Thos. B. Coe, Judge.
    Bill Purswell was convicted of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Fuller & Fuller, of Houston, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   . MORROW, P. J.

The offense is the unlawful ' transportation of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the peni-, tentiary for one year.

The criminating evidence comes from the sheriff, Hightower, and Anderson, his deputy. They went to the home of McElvain, which consisted'of a dwelling house, a barn, garden, and field embracing about 20 acres. They secreted themselves in the field. There was a social gathering at McElvain’s house. The appellant was an inmate of the house as the guest of McElvain. The officers observed various persons coming into the field and returning to the house, and saw them engage in certain acts under circumstances indicating that they were drinking whisky. Appellant was among the parties, and at one time stopped within one or two feet from the sheriff, who recognized him. He had known the appellant for many years. After members of the social gathering had come and gone into the field several times, Anderson heard them talk about some “high-powered stuff,” and immediately saw the appellant. Anderson at the time was secreted near a bush. As the appellant approached him, Anderson threw his flash light upon the appellant and saw a jug in his hand, Which was found to contain whisky. The appellant was arrested, and the jug and contents were introduced in evidence upon the trial.

Appellant had gone to McElvain’s house several days before the occasion in question. He introduced testimony to the effect that he did not take the whisky to McElvain’s house. He also introduced some of the parties who were present at the gathering and who stated that they did not see the appellant have a jug. One witness testified' that he saw him at the time of his arrest, but did not see him have a jug. Appellant’s wife, who went with him to McElvain’s house in an automobile, testified that they carried no whisky with them.' The appellant did not testify.

Appellant objected to the testimony of the officers, basing his objection upon the proposition that his arrest was illegal, the officers having neither a warrant of arrest nor a warrant to search the premises. Appellant insists that the evidence was obtained under the search of a private dwelling. The nature of the premises seems unimportant for the reason that they were not the premises of the appellant nor in his possession. It has been held'by this court and by many others that the right of exemption from a search of the premises is not available to the accused, but is personal to the owner or possessor of the premises. “The right to complain because of an illegal search and seizure is a privilege personal to the wronged or injured party, and is not available to any one else.” See Cornelius on Search and Seizure, p. 62, § 12, and cases there collated.

The evidence of the officers, however, would be admissible provided the search 'of the appellant was made contemporaneously with a legal arrest. The statute permits the arrest of one who .commits a felony in the presence or view of an officer without a warrant. Articles 212, 213, C. C. P. 1925. See, also, Jack Moore v. State (No. 10247) 294 S. W. 550, not yet [officially] reported, and cases collated. According to the testimony in the present case, the appellant was in the act of carrying a jug of whisky under circumstances which made evident to the officers that he was committing a felony in. their presence. At least such was the state’s testimony. The testimony of the appellant’s witnesses was to the contrary.

There is a general objection to the court’s charge that it failed to submit the law of the case. The statute requires that the exception be specific. An examination of the charge discloses that the issue — that is, whether the appellant was transporting intoxicating liquor — was submitted to the jury, and appropriate instructions given upon the presumption- of innocence and reasonable doubt. We have perceived no affirmative defenses calling for an affirmative charge. The premises not being in the possession of the appellant, the court properly refused to instruct the jury upon the theory that a search of McElvain’s premises was available to the appellant. His arrest and search (if a search was made) is referable to “probable cause” growing out of his conduct and the possession of whisky, which was known to the officers before his arrest and his transporting it in their presence. The proof justified the receipt of the evidence of the officers. See Odenthal v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 290 S. W. 743.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, J.

Appellant calls attention to a matter not discussed in our original opinion. He made affidavit to his motion for new trial, in which he averred that the jury considered as a circumstance against him the fact that he did not testify as a witness. The affidavit of no juror or other person who could have knowledge of the fact, if it occurred, was attached to the motion. If any evidence was introduced or tendered upon the hearing to support the allegation, it is not brought forward. It is apparent that the averment could not have been based on appellant’s own knowledge, but is bound to be purely a hearsay matter with him. This seems to bring the case within the rule announced in Noble v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 463, 266 S. W. 412, and in Hughes v. State (No. 10766) 293 S. W. 575, opinion on rehearing April 27, 1927, not yet [officially] reported. Furthermore, it being recited in the judgment overruling the motion that evidence was heard, it will be presumed that the evidence justified the court’s action where the evidence so heard is not brought before us. Cade v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 523, 258 S. W. 484; Hicks v. State, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 373, 261 S. W. 579; Crouchette v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 572,, 271 S. W. 99; Wilson v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 561, 271 S. W. 104; Armstrong v. State, 102 Tex. Cr. R. 496, 278 S. W. 435.

The motion for rehearing is overruled. 
      For other cases see same topic and KBY-NXJMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     