
    GANNON v. STATE.
    (No. 8207.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 26, 1924.
    Rehearing Denied May 28, 1924.)
    Criminal law t&wkey;-5l7(4)— Declarations of accused! at time of arrest admissible under exception to statute on confessions.
    Where officers went to defendant’s home with search warrant and .asked as to whereabouts of choc beer, defendant’s statement that it was near the door was admissible under Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 810, as exception to statute on confessions.
    <§=jFor other cases see same topic and KRY-N UMBRR in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Appeal from District Court, Clay County; Paul Donald, Judge.
    F. G. Gannon was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    R. Donley Suddath, of Henrietta, and Cedric O. Taylor, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

Manufacturing intoxicating liquor is the offense; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of one year.

The state’s testimony was to the effect that an officer, while passing near the home of the appellant, saw some mash cooking on his premises and judged from the appearance of it that liquor was being made. He also observed the appellant carrying water. Later, the officer, in company with others, went to the home of the appellant, and, finding him there, asked him the whereabouts of the “choc beer” which he was making that afternoon. Appellant replied that it was near the door. One of the officers looked at the place designated and found there “a ten-gallon keg of sour mash and stuff.” Appellant was then asked the whereabouts of the “finished stuff.” When asked if he had any more, he declared that he did not, but later the officer found some morej There was more liquor in the tub in which the mash had been cooking earlier in the day. There were also found on the premises 15 gallons of “choc beer” which was warm. The liquid found on the premises was analyzed and found to contain 8 and a fraction per cent, of alcohol by volume. There was also evidence that “choc beer” was intoxicating, the percentage of alcohol being above that in the beverage known as “lager beer.”

Appellant’s testimony was to the effect that he was merely starting to make “choc beer” ; that the arrest interrupted his operations; that, according to the process of making it, it was required to cool before the ingredients necessary to complete it were put in it; that his arrest was made while the liquid was still -hot. He also testified that, when the officers arrived with a search warrant, they said: “Have you got any choc;” .that he replied: “Yes,” and pointed it out to them. He had not previously manufactured such an article. He said it was not made to sell or to transport it; that it was not intoxicating. He further said that in warm weather it took about four days to make “choc beer,” and in winter it took longer time; that to complete the article which he had in the tub, it would have to have hops, yeast, and sugar-put in it besides the articles that were in it at the time of his arrest.

Objection was made to the receipt in evi-den-ee of the declarations of the appellant to wliicli we liave adverted upon the ground that they constituted a verbal confession made while appellant was in custody and unwarned. The declarations are apparently admissible under the exception to the statute on confessions, which reads thus:

“ * * * Or, unless in connection with said confession, he makes statements of facts or circumstances that are found to be true, which conduce to establish his guilt, such as the finding of secreted or stolen property, or the instrument with which he states the offense was committed.” Article 810, C. C. P.

See Vernon’s Tex. Crim. Stat. vol. 2, p. 756, note 12, and cases cited; also Broz v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 137, 245 S. W. 707; Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C. § 63.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.  