
    EDWARDS v. STATE.
    (No. 7335.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 17, 1923.)
    1. Criminal law <s=>507(l) — Purchasers of intoxicating liquor before November 15, 1921, are seder’s accomplices, whose testimony must be corroborated!.
    Purchasers of intoxicating liquor prior to the adoption of the amendment effective November 15, 1921, to the Dean Law (Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588½ et seq.) are accomplices of the seller, and the seller cannot be convicted on their testimony alone, however, full and conclusive.
    2. Criminal lav/ <§=>5li(l) — Evidence corroborating accomplices held insufficient to convict of selling.
    Evidence corroborative of that of accomplices held insufficient to support a conviction of selling intoxicating liquor.
    Appeal from District Court, Liberty County; D. F. Singleton, Judge.
    Dan Edwards was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Reversed.
    E. B. Pickett, Jr., of Liberty, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Liberty county of the offense of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.

The undisputed proof in the record shows a sale of a small quantity of liquor to two young men at the same time in September, 1921, each of whom contributed to the purchase. The occurrence having taken place prior to the adoption of the amendment to the Dean Law, which went into effect November 15, 1921 (Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588⅛ et seq.), the purchasers occupy the attitude of accomplices, and how-eyer full and conclusive their , testimony might be, a conviction thereon could not be upheld unless there be other evidence besides that of said accomplices tending to connect the accused with the crime charged. Plachy v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 239 S. W. 979. The only other evidence appearing in the record is, in substance, that a few days after said alleged sale the sheriff and other parties went to the residence occupied by appellant and his family, and that they there found 10 gallons of milo maize mash; a can and a piece of little rubber hose, such as is ordinarily used in connection with syringes. This piece of hose and the mash and the can were found in a little outhouse on the premises. A bottle containing a small quantity of what was claimed to be corn whisky was found in the house. This is apparently all the testimony upon which the state-can rely for corroboration of said accomplices. We do not believe the evidence measures up to the standard required by the law in such cases. No witness save the accomplices themselves saw appellant make the sale or do any act relative .thereto, nor is any statement of his in this connection offered in evidence. His connection with the apparatus or .articles mentioned above is a deduction based solely on the fact that they were found on his premises. What other persons lived on said premises or had access thereto is not stated. In our opinion this evidence is not sufficient to justify or support a verdict incarcerating a citizen of this state, white or black, in the penitentiary for any term.

For the reason that there is no sufficient corroborative testimony to that of said accomplices, the judgment of conviction must be reversed; and it is so ordered. 
      ®=oEor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     