
    TREMONT v. STATE.
    (No. 7983.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 5, 1924.)
    1. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;2(S — Indictment charging manufacture of liquor capable of intoxicating held sufficient.
    An indictment, for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, charging the manufacture of liquor capable of producing intoxication, held sufficient.
    2. Jury &wkey;>38 — Absence of women on panel not grounds for quashing same.
    Women are' not competent to serve on a jury under the laws and the Constitution of the state of Texas, and the absence of women on a jury panel is not ground for quashing same.
    3. Criminal law <&wkey;>394 — Testimony of officers as to results of search of building made with-, out warrant held admissible.
    In a prosecution for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, the admission of testimony by officers as to what they found in defendant’s storehouse held not error, though their entrance had been made without a search warrant.
    4. Criminal law &wkey;>829( I) — Denial of requested charge oo-veredl by another given not error.
    Denial of special requested charge covered by another given not error.
    Appeal from District Court, Orange County; V. H. Stark, Judge.
    
      ■ Joe Tremont was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and lie appeals.
    'Affirmed.
    Holland & Holland, of Orange, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover .C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   DATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Orange county of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, 'and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.

No statement of facts was filed within the time allowed by statute. There are five bills of exception. The first evidences complaint at the refusal of the" court to quash the indictment. The indictment charged the manufacture of liquor capable of producing intoxication. This ■ is sufficient. Tucker v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 505, 251 S. W. 1090. The second bill presents complaint of the refusal of the court to quash the jury panel because no women were drawn on the jury. This court has specifically held that women are not competent to serve on a jury under the laws and Constitution of this state. The third bill of exceptions complains that officers were permitted to testify to what they found in appellant’s storehouse, their, entrance being made without a search warrant. This is settled against appellant by Welchek v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 271, 247 S. W. 524. The proposition contained in the special charge, refusal to give which is complained of in the fourth bill of exceptions, was fully covered by the main charge. The proposition contained in the fifth bill of exceptions would be contrary to our holding in the case of Welchek v. State, supra.

No error appearing in the record, the judgment will be affirmed. 
      <§=5>For other oases see same topic and KEr-NDMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     