
    Lois GILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.
    No. 31837.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 6, 1960.
    
      James T. Flynt, Jones & Jones, Mineóla, for appellant.
    James L. Hartsfield, Jr., County Atty., Quitman, Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
   BELCHER, Commissioner.

The conviction is for the possession of whiskey in a dry area for. the purpose of sale; the punishment, ten days in jail and a fine of $100.

Proof was offered that Wood County was a dry area.

Two deputy sheriffs followed the appellant, who was driving a taxicab, from Mineóla to a place where he stopped the cab on a rural road. From a distance of about ISO yards they observed appellant, who was not carrying anything, leave the cab and go' into some weeds and bushes. The officers drove up behind the cab. At this time appellant emerged from the bushes and entered the road about 35 yards in front of the cab. One officer went to the appellant and the other into the bushes at the point where appellant had entered. When appellant was asked what he was looking for he replied “just looking around”. A search of the appellant and the cab did not reveal any intoxicants. Thirty-two half-pints of whiskey were found about 30 yards from the cab in the weeds and bushes. No path or trail lead to or from the whiskey. The officers stated that they.didn’t know who owned or had control of the land on which the whiskey was found. An examination for fingerprints revealed no readable prints.

Appellant testifying in his own behalf admitted stopping his cab and entering the bushes as the officers testified, but he 'says he did so as- he told them to answer a call' of nature due to medicine he had recently, taken. He denied any connection with or knowledge of the whiskey the officers found, and further said that he didn’t own or have any control of the land where it was found.

The facts and circumstances are not sufficient to show that the appellant owned or had the possession of the whiskey. Crutch-field v. State, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 569, 132 S.W. 2d 855; Gonzales v. State, 143 Tex.Cr.R. 48, 156 S.W.2d 988.

The evidence being insufficient to support the conviction, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.  