
    CAMPBELL v. STATE.
    (No. 5936.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 27, 1921.
    Rehearing Denied May 25, 1921.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;406(2) — Testimony as to defendant’s statement to officer relative to liquor not inadmissible on ground he was in custody and not warned.
    In a prosecution for transporting and possessing intoxicating liquor in violation of the Dean Law, testimony of the officer who found defendant and wife in bed in his hotel, and two grips or suit cases filled with pint bottles of whisky in the room, as to the statement made to him by defendant concerning the grips and liquor, held not inadmissible on the- ground that defendant was under 'arrest or legal restraint and was not warned.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;69S(3) — Objection to testimony cannot be sustained, where such testi-money received without objection from other witnesses.
    Where there is testimony of witnesses to a fact without objection, objection to the same testimony from other witnesses cannot be sustained;
    3. Witnesses &wkey;>335 — State could ask hostile witness if she was common prostitute.
    In a prosecution for transporting and possessing intoxicating liquor in violation of the Dean Law, it was competent for the state to ask a woman who had the room next the defendant and his wife, and who testified for defendant, she being a hostile witness, if she was not a common prostitute, though she had already stated she had a room in the hotel kept by defendant; consideration of such question being limited by.the court in its charge to the credibility of the witness.
    4. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;239(4) — In view of lack of supporting evidence, refusal of charge in liquor prosecution proper.
    In a prosecution for transporting and having possession of intoxicating liquor in violation of the Dean Law, in view of the lack of supporting evidence, refusal of defendant’s requested charge that, if the grips containing liquor were left in his room, and he did not know their contents, he could not be guilty, held proper.
    Appeal from District Court, Eastland County; E. A. Hill, Judge.
    Jack Campbell was convicted of transporting and possessing intoxicating liquor in violation of the Dean Law, and he appeals.
    Judgment affirmed.
    Mays & Mays, of Fort Worth, and C. P. Chastain, of Eastland, for appellant.
    Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Eastland county by a general verdict of guilty under an indictment containing two counts, one charging transporting, apd the other charging possessing, intoxicating liquor, in violation of what is known as the Dean Law (Acts 2d Called Sess. 36th Leg. p. 228), and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.

The facts showed that appellant was the proprietor of a hotel in Eastland county, and that on the occasion in question two deputy sheriffs went to his room in said hotel in the early morning and found therein appellant and his wife in bed and also two grips or suit cases filled with pint bottles of whisky. Both officers testified that appellant told them that he had just bought this liquor from a bootlegger. The assistant county attorney testified that after the case was filed appellant came to the county attorney’s office and told witness that he had just gotten in from El Paso with said liquor. On appellant’s behalf his wife testified that a man whom she did not know had left two grips in his room that night. She further stated that appellant told the officers it was his and that he had bought it, to protect the other man. A woman who danced in the cabaret of appellant and occupied a room in said hotel adjoining that occupied by appellant and his wife also testified that about 12 or 1 o’clock on said night she heard a mán ask appellant if he could leave a couple of grips with him. On cross-examination this witness admitted her intimacy with men and that she was engaged in prostitution at the time.

Appellant’s first objection is to the testimony of Officer Hague as to the statement made to him by appellant concerning the grips -and liquor; the ground of the objection being that the accused was under arrest or legal restraint at the time and was not warned. It does not appear from the bill of exceptions that appellant knew Mr. Hague to be an officer, nor that anything was said about arrest or the official character of either of the men prior to said conversation. It is-not shown that appellant knew or thought that having said liquor in his possession was a crime. Speer v. State, 4 Tex. App. 485. If one found by an officer in possession of stolen property makes a statement as to where he got it before arrest, such statement is admissible. Holmes v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 361, 23 S. W. 687; Hilcher v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 180, 131 S. W. 592. Mr. Branch, in section 62 of his Ann. Penal Code, cites many authorities as holding that, whatever the intentions of the officer, if he had not communicated same to defendant or arrested defendant at the time he made statements, they are admissible. These authorities seem conclusive of this contention of appellant. We find also that the testimony of the other officer appe'ars to be in the record without objection, and the uniform holding of this court is that, where there is testimony of witnesses to a fact, without objection, this would render of no consequence objection to the same testimony from other witnesses.

It is competent for either party to ask a hostile witness if she is not a common prostitute. McCray v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 609, 44 S. W. 170; Hall v. State, 43 Tex. Cr. R. 489, 66 S. W. 783; Brittain v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. R. 602, 85 S. W. 278. The fact that the witness had already stated that she had a room in the hotel kept by appellant would not make this testimony inadmissible. The trial court limited in his charge to the jury consideration of this question to the credibility of said witness.

We do not think it reversible' error to refuse a charge to the effect that, if the grips were left in appellant’s room and.he did not know their contents, he would not be guilty. The testimony of appellant’s wife was relied on to support this theory. The element of knowingly transporting or possessing is not found in the legislative act covering this offense, but, if it should be deemed an issue in a proper case, we would hold that the evidence before us to the contrary is so overwhelming as to make the contention without substance. In the testimony of appellant’s wife appears the statement that appellant did know what was in said grips. Appellant did not testify himself, and it seems indisputable that the two grips were found in his room, and that he told the officers that same-contained whisky and that he had just purchased it. His wife admitted that her husband told the officers these facts. Mr. Sew-ell, the assistant county attorney, testified that after appellant made bond he came to the county attorney’s office and told him he had just gotten home with said liquor from El Paso and tried to get his case dismissed, stating that it was a strange law that a man could not get whisky at one place and bring it home. It seems to be well settled that, unless there appears some evidence upon which a jury might predicate a finding thereunder, the refusal of a charge presenting an issue will not be error. Mitchell v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. R. 545, 144 S. W. 1006; Phillips v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 160, 121 S. W. 1110; Williams v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 453, 132 S. W. 345; Lopez v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. R. 624, 166 S. W. 154.

( We find no reversible error in the record, and the judgment will be affirmed. 
      <§=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     