
    PATRICK v. STATE.
    (No. 10693.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 23, 1927.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;784(I) — Refusal to instruct on circumstantial evidence held error, where there was no positive evidence that liquor possessed was for sale.
    In prosecution for unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for sale, refusal to instruct on circumstantial evidence held error, where less than a quart of liquor was' found in defendant’s possession, and there was no positive evidence of its possession for sale.
    2. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;224-¡-There is no presumption that one in possession of less than a quart of intoxicating liquor possesses it for sale.
    Where one is in possession of less than a quart of intoxicating liquor, there is no presumption that it is possessed for sale.
    3. Intoxicating liquors &wkey;>224 — Possession of more than one quart of intoxicating liquor is presumed to be for sale.
    Presumption obtains that, when one is in possession of more than a quart of intoxicating liquor, it is possessed for sale.
    4. Criminal law <&wkey;758 — Instruction that only purpose for which prior conviction could be considered was as affecting credibility of defendant as witness held on . weight of evidence.
    Instruction that only purpose for which prior conviction could be considered was as affecting credibility of defendant as witness held on weight of evidence.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; J. D. Campbell, Judge.
    Cleve Patrick was convicted of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor for sale, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    O. M. Lord and Blain & Jones, all of Beaumont, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.
   BAKER, J.

The appellant was convicted of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, and his punishment assessed at one year in the penitentiary.

The state relied for a' conviction upon the testimony of the deputy sheriff, J. M. Foote, who testified, in effect, that on the night of October- 81, 1921, he went to appellant’s place of business in the town of Sabine, and observed the appellant standing behind the counter or bar and pouring what he tools: to be whisky into glasses; that two men were standing across the counter or bar in front of appellant; that, upon observing him, appellant poured the whisky out of the glasses into a pan of water and threw the bottle in a trash basket; that he (the witness) immediately walked in behind the bar and asked the two men if the whisky belonged to theta, to which they replied that it did not. The witness testified that the two men in question were sailors, and also testified that the appellant had his residence in the back end of the house, and ran a cold drink stand in the front of the house, where he got the whisky in question. The witness further testified that the two glasses were small whisky glasses. On cross-examination the witness testified that the bottle in question was not a regular quart-size bottle, and that it contained about a half quart of whis-ky or less. He further testified on cross-examination that as a matter of fact he did not know it was whisky that appellant was attempting to serve the men when he started in the door; that he did not see the men touch the glasses in front of them, nor did he see the men give any money to the ap-' pellant; and that he did not know whether the appellant was giving whisky to them or selling it to them.

There are but two questions presented in the record for our consideration. The first is that the court erred in refusing to submit to the jury the law of circumstantial evidence. The appellant, at the proper time, objected and excepted to the court’s refusal to so charge. After a careful .examination of the record, we have reached the conclusion that the evidence in the case raised this issue, and the learned trial judge fell into error in refusing to so charge the jury. The undisputed testimony shows that the amount of intoxicating liquor found by the officer on the premises of'the appellant was less than a quart; consequently the presumption that appellant had said whisky for sale did not prevail, as in cases where the appellant is found in possession of more than a quart, which would make a prima facie case that it was possessed for sale. In the instant case it devolved upon the state to show by evidence, positive or circumstantial, that the half quart of whisky or less found in appellant’s place of business was possessed for the purpose of sale. The stare was forced to rely upon the circumstance testified to by the officer to supply this issue, and the jury, in order to reach the verdict of guilty, was forced to infer from said facts and circumstances that appellant possessed the whisky in question for sale. This being true, it was necessary to charge the jury on circumstantial evidence. Mr.' Branch, in his Annotated Penal Code, states:

“If the main fact is proved as a matter of inference from other facts .in evidence, the case rests wholly, in a legal sense, upon circumstantial evidence,”

—citing Ward v. State, 10 Tex. App. 297, Goode v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. R. 418, 120 S. W. 199, and many other authorities; also see Kyle v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 554, 270 S. W. 1020, and Chew v. State, 104 Tex. Cr. R. 417, 284 S. W. 559.

The appellant, in his bill of exception No. 1, complains that the court, in instructing the jury not to consider the argument of the attorney representing the state to the effect that the appellant had been formerly convicted of selling intoxicating liquor, instructed them that the only reference that could be made to said prior conviction, and the only purpose for which it was introduced, or could be considered by the jury, was “as affecting the credibility” of the appellant as a witness. The appellant contends that this charge, as given, was upon the weight of the evidence. This criticism is not without merit. In view of another trial of this case, we suggest that the court, if it becomes necessary to charge on this issue again, should frame his charge so as to avoid the criticism here urged.

For the error above discussed, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and remanded; and it is accordingly so ordered.

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. 
      &wkey;For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     