
    HIGHTOWER v. STATE.
    (No. 11195.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 25, 1928.
    Criminal law <&wkey;395 — Whisky found on defendant after arrest when dropping jar of whisky
    In officer’s view held admissible (Code Cr.
    Proc. 1925, arts. 212, 213).
    Under Code Cr. Proc. 1925, arts. 212, 213, authorizing arrest without warrant in case felony is committed in officer’s presence, with incidental right to search person of defendant, whisky found on searching defendant after his arrest when he had broken a jar of whisky in view of officer held admissible.
    Appeal from District Court, Grayson County; P. B. Wilcox, Judge.
    Sam Hightower was convicted for the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    B. W. Neagle, of Sherman, for appellant.
    A. A: Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The offense is the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

An officer testified that he observed the appellant upon a street in the town of Sherman ; that he was about midway of the block and was holding something under his arm and under his coat. Upon observing the officer, appellant cut across the street towards a filling station. The officer followed him, and, as he approached, appellant took the package from under his arm and dropped it. It fell on the concrete and broke. It was a half gallon jar full of whisky. The officer recovered a part of the whisky and thereafter arrested the appellant. Upon searching the appellant, another pint of whisky was found in his pocket.

Against the receipt of this testimony the point is made that it was improper because it was the result of an illegal search. The contention, we think, is unsound. The officer made no arrest or search until it became obvious that the appellant was transporting a half gallon jar of whisky. Our statute (articles 212, 213, C. C. P. 1925) authorizes the arrest without warrant where a felony is committed in the presence and view of an officer; and where the arrest is made upon such authority, there exists the incidental right to search the person of the offender. Moore v. State, 107 Tex. Cr. R. 24, 294 S. W. 550, and cases therein cited, including Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, 46 S. Ct. 4, 70 L. Ed. 145, 51 A. L. R. 409.

Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed.  