
    HULL et al. v. STATE.
    (No. 7273.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 4, 1923.
    Rehearing Denied April 25, 1923.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;1092(6) — Bills of exceptions, based on statements of fact, must be filed during term.
    Bills of exceptions, necessarily based on the statements of fact attached thereto, not filed during the term of the trial court, will not.be considered on appeal. *
    2. Criminal law <®=»l 092(5) —Statements of fact, relating to matters other than the testimony introduced on the trial, must be approved and filed during term time.
    Statements of facts relating to matters other than the testimony introduced on the actual-trial of the cause must be approved and filed during the term of the trial court, to be considered on appeal.
    3. Criminal law <&wkey;l 122(1)— That special charge was presented, refused, and exception noted before main charge was given must appear by notation or separate bill of exceptions.
    In order that the refusal of a special charge be considered on appeal, the fact that the special charge was presented to the trial court before the main charge was given, and was then either refused or given, and exception noted, must appear either by a notation on the refused charge or by, separate bill of exceptions.
    4. Intoxicating liquors <@=»2(0— Indictment charging transportation of intoxicating liquor not required to allege point from which transportation began or at which it ended.
    In a prosecution for the transportation of intoxicating liquor, the indictment was not required to allege the point from which the transportation began or at which it ended.
    
      5. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;239(I) — Refusal of special charges as to transportation and! character of liquor held not error.
    In a prosecution for the transportation of intoxicating liqupr, in which the testimony showed that officers overtook defendant’s automobile and found intoxicating liquor therein, the refusal of special charges pertaining to the question' of transportation and the character of the liquor transported held not error.
    6. Intoxicating liquors &wkey;>236(20) — Evidence held to prove transportation of liquor.
    Evidence held to sustain conviction for the transportation of intoxicating liquor.
    Appeal from District Oourt, Randall County ; Henry S. Bishop, Judge.
    Charlie Hull and J. D. Colthorp were convicted of transporting intoxicating (liquor, and they appeal.
    Affirmed.
    A. M. Mood, of Amarillo, for appellants.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellants were convicted in the district court of Randall county of the offense of transporting intoxicating liquor, and their punishment fixed at three years in the penitentiary.

A motion was filed to have the honorable trial court recuse himself upon the ground that he had taken part in the prosecution. Appellants presented evidence at length in support of their motion. Said evidence appears set out' in connection with appellants’ bills of exception Nos. 1 and 2. The state objects to considering said bills of exception upon the ground that same are necessarily based up on the statement' of facts attached to each, and that they were not filed during term time. It appears as a matter of fact from an inspection of the record that said bills of exception were filed nearly two months after the expiration of the trial term of the court below. It has been held by this court uniformly, since Black v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 185, 53 S. W. 116, that all statements of fact relating to matters other than the testimony introduced upon the actual trial of the cause must be approved and filed during term time. The decisions cited by the state in its brief are Probest v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 608, 133 S. W. 263; Mooney v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. R. 123, 164 S. W. 828; Parroccini v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 320, 234 S. W. 671; Salazar v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 209, 225 S. W. 528. There are many other decisions of this court which might be cited on the same point. We do not feel inclined to vary from the rule thus announced. The law seems to be so well settled and generally understood that this court has no desire to introduce any element of uncertainty by discussing the facts as they appear in said bills of exception.

Appellant has a number of special charges' in the record. The refusal of said charges is not preserved by separate bills of exception. The only notation that we observe upon them is that they were “seasonably presented.” We do not know what this means. There has been no decision of this court known to us by which any rule is announced than that the fact must be made known to this court by the record, either by annotation upon the refused charge or by a separate bill of exceptions, that a special charge was presented to the trial court before the main charge was given and was by him then either refused or given and exception noted. However, we have read the special charges in this case, and are of opinion that no error appears in the refusal of any of them. The indictment herein charged transportation of 5 gallons of alcohol in cans, 5 quarts of tiquila in a keg, and about. 10 pints of champagne in bottles; it being further alleged that said liquor was intoxicating.

We do not think it necessary in a transportation case that the indictment allege the point from which such transportation began, nor that at which it' ended. The testimony in this ease shows that, when the officers overtook and succeeded in stopping the car in which appellants were, they found in the car 10 5-gallon cans of alcohol, a 5-gallon keg of tiquila and about 16 bottles of wine, having on same a Spanish label. A witness described the wine as champagne. The special charges referred to, as we understand the record, all relate to matters pertaining to the question of transportation and the kind and character of the liquor transported, about which we are unable to perceive any issue to be raised in the testimony. The liquor found in the car driven by appellants was examined and tested, and shown by testimony to be intoxicating. The appellants introduced a witness who said that he had visited in old Mexico, and who tasted the liquor introduced in evidence by the state as tiquila, and gave it as his opinion that it was not tiquila. This witness also said that the wine offered by the state was not champagne. We think the evidence amply supported the verdict of the jury.

Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed. 
      <@=^For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes .,
     
      <&wkey;For other eases see same topic and KEY-NTJMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     