
    McDOLE v. STATE.
    (No. 11825.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 30, 1928.
    1. Names <&wkey;>16(2) — Name McDough in search warrant, which could he pronounced like defendant’s, name, “McDole,” in description of premises, held to sufficiently identify him.
    Search warrant reading in part, “Being residence occupied by J. C. McDough north and west of the north and of First street of the city of Lubbock, Texas, and being just south and west of the main line of the Santa Fé Railway tracks,” held to sufficiently identify accused, though his name was McDole, since name given in search warrant could be pronounced and sounded like defendant’s name.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;H69(l) — Admitting evidence regarding liquor found under search warrant in which defendant’s name was misspelled held harmless where real issue was defendant’s insanity.
    Admitting evidence in liquor prosecution regarding liquor found under search warrant in which defendant’s name was misspelled held not error, where real issue was defendant’s insanity and evidence supported jury’s finding against defendant on issue.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Lubbock County ; Clark M. Mullican, Judge.
    J. C. McDole was convicted of possessing liquors for the purpose of sale, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Marshall & Stewart, of Lubbock, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   MARTIN, J.

Offense, the unlawful possession for the purpose of sale of spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors containing in excess of 1 per cent, of alcohol by volume; penalty, two years in the penitentiary.

Operating under a search warrant, officers found on the premises of appellant 177 bottles of beer, 55 empty beer bottles, 67 empty whisky bottles, 300 caps, 7 pints of whisky, etc. Objection was made to the introduction of this testimony because in the search warrant appellant’s name was spelled “Mc-Dough.” That part of the search warrant under attack is as follows:

“Being the residence occupied by J. C. Mc-Dough north and west of the north and of First street of the city of Lubbock, Texas, and being just south and west of the main line of the Santa Fé Railway tracks.”

In addition to the evidence of the officers, there was introduced testimony of several sales, including some to college students, made by appellant. Aside from the evidence given by the officers, the guilt of the appellant was overwhelmingly and conclusively proven and was not denied or attempted to be denied. The only defense offered was that of insanity. We are inclined to the view that since the name given in the search warrant may be pronounced and sounded like the name of appellant, that it, in connection with the description of the premises occupied by appellant, sufficiently identifies him. See Cline v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 416, 31 S. W. 175; Nickelson v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 634, 111 S. W. 414. This bill, like all others, must be appraised by its relation to the entire record. Thus considered we do not believe that the point presents error even conceding the correctness of appellant’s position, since there seems to be no room for controversy as to the truth of the facts alleged in the indictment.

The real issue was appellant’s sanity, and this has been resolved by the jury against appellant, and, there being ample evidence to support such finding under proper instructions from the court, we cannot disturb the judgment of guilty, and the same is in all things affirmed.

PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.  