
    CALDWELL v. STATE.
    (No. 10297.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 15, 1926.
    Rehearing Withdrawn Jan. 5, 1927.)
    1. Criminal law <®=829 (I) — Refusal of requested charges held not error, where covered by court’s main eharge.
    Refusal of requested special charges fully covered by court’s main charge held not error.
    2. Intoxicating liquors <©=>236(6'/2> — Though statute makes possession of more than quart of liquor prima facie evidence of guilt, defendant may show legality of possession.
    In prosecution for possession of liquor for purpose of sale, charge that statute provides that possession of more than one quart of liquor shall be prima facie evidence of guilt, but defendant may introduce evidence showing legality of possession, held proper.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Bowe County t Hugh Carney, Judge.
    W. O. Caldwell was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor for purpose of ■ sale, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    King, Mahaffey & Wheeler, of Texarkana, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.
   BETHEA, J.

The appellant was convicted in the district court of Bowie county for the offense of possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of 18 months.

The appellant was arrested in an alley in the city of Texarkana with a five-gallon keg of whisky under each arm. The record discloses that the kegs were almost full of whis-ky.

Appellant complains of the court’s refusal to give two special charges. The record fails to reveal any exception to the court’s refusal, either by bill of exceptions or any notation upon the refused charges that any exception was reserved. However, the trial court fully presented the matters complained of in said special charges in his main charge to the jury.

Appellant In his only bill of exceptions complains at the court’s- giving the following charge:

“Our statute provides that possession of more than one quart of intoxicating liquor shall be prima facie evidence of guilt, hut the defendant shall have a right to introduce evidence showing the legality of such possession.”

This question was decided adversely to appellant’s contention in the case of Walden v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 584, 272 S. W. 139.

There being no errors pointed out in the record, and the facts being amply sufficient to support, the verdict of the jury, the judgment is affirmed.

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

On Motion for Rehearing.

BETHEA, J.

Since the filing of his motion for rehearing, appellant has filed a written application, duly verified, requesting the withdrawal of said motion. The applica-, tion is granted^ and it is ordered that mandate issue upon the original hearing in which the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM. Thq foregoing opinion, of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and approved by the court. 
      ^oFor other cases see sama.topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     