
    G. A. JOHNSON v. STATE.
    (No. 9142.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 14, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied March 18, 1925.)
    Appeal from Criminal District Court. Williamson County.; James R. Hamilton, Judge.
    J. F. Taulbee, of Georgetown, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover O. 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 driving an automobile while intoxicated, and his punishment fixed at 90 days in the county jail and a {fine of $100. The record is before us without a statement of facts or bill of exceptions. The indictment appears to sufficiently charge the offense. We observe, however, that the judgment finds appellant guilty of the offense of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating' liquor. It is not an offense for one to so drive such vehicle, except upon .a public highway. The judgment will bo reformed, so as to adjudge the defendant guilty of driving a motoT vehicle upon a public highway of this state while intoxicated, and, as reformed, there being no error in the record, an affirmance will be ordered.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant complains of our reforming the judgment, and seems to base his objection upon' the fact that there ' was no statement of facts in the record upon which we could base our said action. Elaborating our original opinion, we now state that the indictment charged appellant with operating and driving a motor vehicle on a certain public highway, etc., while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The charge of the court, which appears in the record, instructs the jury to find appellant guilty if they believe beyond a reasonable doubt that he did “then and there unlawfully operate or drive a motor vehicle * * • upon a certain public highway in said county and state,” etc. We further note that the verdict of the jury was that they found appellant guilty as charged in the indictment, etc. In this condition of the record, we have no doubt of the correctness of our holding that the judgment rendered should have been responsive to the verdict, charge, and indictment, and that, said judgment having omitted to state that appellant was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway, it became our duty to reform same, and make it so appear responsive to the finding of the jury in their verdict. Believing the case correctly disposed of in our original opinion, the motion for rehearing will be overruled.  