
    CASEY v. STATE.
    (No. 8141.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 30, 1924.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 22, 1924.)
    1. Intoxicating liquors <§=5236(6(/2) — Evidence held to sustain conviction for possession.
    Evidence held to sustain- conviction for possession of intoxicating liquor.
    2. Witnesses <§^361 (2) — Proof of state witness’ good reputation for truth and veracity proper, where shown he had been guilty of theft.
    Where state’s witness admitted that as a boy he had been charged with theft and pleaded guilty, it was proper to introduce testimony of his good reputation for truth and veracity.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    31. Intoxicating liquors <§=>139 — Defendant’s control or possession of premises where liquor is located need not be proved in prosecution fof possession.
    To sustain conviction for possession of liquor for purpose of sale, it is not necessary to show that defendant had legal title or control of premises on which liquor was located.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Williamson County; James R. Hamilton, Judge.
    Hill Casey was convicted of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. P. Taulbee, of Georgetown, for appellant
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the criminal district court of Williamson county of possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale, and his punishment fixed-at two years in the penitentiary.

The evidence supports the verdict. A state witness went to appellant and asked him if he had any whisky, to which he replied, “Lots of it.” He then took witness to a nearby place, and showed him a quantity of whisky which he tried to sell witness at a certain price per gallon.

The state witness was asked on cross-examination by appellant if he had not been convicted of theft, and admitted that when a boy he had been so charged and had pleaded guilty. The state thereafter placed on the stand three witnesses who testified to the good reputation of said witness for truth and veracity. This was proper. Coombes v. State, 17 Tex. App. 264; Farmer v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 270, 33 S. W. 232; Luttrell v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 659, 51 S. W. 930.

There are two other bills of exception in the record, neither of which raises any point deemed tenable by us, or a discussion of which would be of any advantage..

The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant seems to be of the opinion, as set forth in his motion, that the evidence for the state did not sufficiently show him to be in control and management of the liquor in question, chiefly because it is contended that it failed to show him in the care, management, and control of the premises on which the liquor was located. We are not of the opinion that it is a requisite to show that the accused was the owner, or that he had any legal title to the premises on which contraband liquor may be located, in order to show his guilt of possession of same for purposes of sale. In this case appellant carried the state witness down into a pasture, where he showed said witness eight or ten jars of whisky, and said that he had it to sell. There was no testimony offered com-' bating the proposition advanced by the appellant, viz., that the liquor was his, and that he had it fpr sale. In our- judgment this sufficiently showed him in possession of the liquor, and also the purpose of his possession.

In bill of exceptions No. — appellant complains of an alleged error of the judge in the matter of the selection of the jury. We have examined this and the other error complained of, and are of opinion that neither presents reversible error, and the motion for rehearing is overruled. 
      <gs»For other cases see samé topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     