
    LOUIS v. STATE.
    (No. 9254.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 9, 1925.)
    1. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;239(I)— Refusal of requested charge that whisky must be in possession of accused, and no one else, held proper.
    In prosecution for possession of liquor for purpose of sale, where liquor was found in automobile of accused who was with companion, special charge that whisky must be in possession of accused, and no one else, held properly refused, as guilt might have been established by joint possession.
    2. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;236(6¡/2) — Instruction that possession of more than quart of liquor prima facie evidence of guilt held proper.
    In prosecution for possession of liquor for purpose of sale, instruction, that possession of spirituous liquors capable of producing intoxication in quantities of more than quart would be prima facie evidence of guilt, held proper.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Harris County; C. W. Robinson, Judge.
    Felix Louis was convicted of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, and he appeals..
    Affirmed.
    R. W. Adams, Jr., of Houston, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The offense is the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years.

There is no conflict in the evidence. According to it, appellant was arrested upon one of the streets, of the city of Houston. He was driving a Ford automobile. With him upon the front seat was a companion. Under the back seat, there were found a gallon of whisky in a jug and four empty jugs of like size. At the home of the appellant there were also found eleven gallons of whisky in jugs similar to those found in the automobile.

The instructions given to the jury submitted such issues as arose from the evidence. The jury were instructed that the possession of spirituous liquors capable of producing intoxication in quantities of more than a quart would be prima facie evidence of guilt. They were also instructed on the credibility of the witnesses and the presumption of innocence.

We think there was no error in refusing special charge No. 1, in which the court was requested to tell the jury that, in order to predicate a conviction, the whisky must be in the possession of the appellant and no one else. His guilt might have been established by the joint possession byjhimself and his companion. The objection to the charge on prima facie evidence is not tenable. See Stoneham v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 54, 268 S. W. 156.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      <S=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     