
    C. E. Lucas v. The State.
    No. 8987.
    Delivered May 13, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied October 14, 1925.
    1. —Possessing Equipment for Making Intoxicating Liquor — Bills of Exception — Incomplete—Not Considered.
    There is no brief on file for appellant. One bill of exception appears in the record, taken to argument of the district attorney, does nqt set out the argument. Some special charges appear in the record, but neither by notation thereon nor by separate bills does it appear that when refused, appellant excepted to such refusal. Nothing is brought forward properly for review. The facts amply sustain the conviction, and the cause is affirmed.
    ON REHEARING.
    2. —Same—Evidence—Held- Sufficient.
    The jury’s conclusions that appellant was guilty of possessing equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, seems to us to he fully supported by the testimony, and appellants motion for a rehearing based on the insufficiency of the evidence isi overruled.
    Appeal from the District Court of Taylor county. Tried below before the Hon. W. R. Ely, Judge.
    Appeal from a conviction of possessing equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year in the State penitentiary.
    No brief filed for appellant.
    
      Tom Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover G. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Taylor county of -possessing equipment for the making of intoxicating* liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.

The facts appear ample to support the conclusion reached by the jury. Mash, a still consisting of a boiler, coil, etc., together with many empty fruit jars and some containing whiskey in the house, were found at appellant’s place. There is no brief on file for the appellant. The record contains one bill of exceptions apparently reserved to the argument of the district attorney. The bill does not set out the argument, nor is there any statement of fact in such bill regarding it or its applicability or otherwise which would bring* anything before us for review. There were some special charges requested but neither by notation thereon nor by separate bills of exception does it appear that when such charges were refused appellant excepted to same. There appear in the record what purports to be other bills of exception which are marked refused by the trial judge and which are not in form to present anything for our consideration. Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed. ■

Affirmed.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

LATTIMORE, Judge.

The equipment found' in appellant’s possession was entirely sufficient to manufacture intoxicating liquor, save and except that the worm was not extended at the time through any cold water. We would not regard the absence of the cold water as evidencing the lack of any necessary part of the equipment. . The jury’s conclusion that appellant was guilty of possessing equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, seems to us to. be fully supported by the testimony, and the motion based on the claimed insufficiency of the testimony is overruled.

Overruled.  