
    GIFFORD v. STATE.
    (No. 9095.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 20, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied June 24, 1925.)
    I. Criminal, law <®=>I087(3), 1105(1) —'Tes. timony in question and answer form-, taken on motion for new trial, and not approved as correct by trial judge, could not be considered.
    On appeal from conviction, testimony in question and answer form, taken on motion of accused for new trial, and which was not approved as correct by trial judge, could not be considered.
    On Motion, for Rehearing.
    2. Criminal law <§=>13 — Statute prohibiting possession of still for manufacturing intoxicating liquor held not too indefinite or uncertain.
    Statute making unlawful the possession of a still for purpose of manufacturing intoxicating liquor held not too indefinite and uncertain, within Pen. Code 1911, art. 1, § 6, to sustain conviction.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Concho County; Lewis H. Jones, Judge.
    Anthon Gifford was convicted of' possession of a still for the purpose of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Flack & Black, of Menard, for appellant. Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   BERRY, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Concho county for the unlawful possession of a still for the purpose of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of one year.

The record is before us without bills, of exception or statement of facts, and as presented there is nothing showing reversible error in the case. There is found among the papers in the ease what purports to be the testimony taken on the defendant’s motion for a new trial. This testimony cannot be considered for the following reasons: (1) Because it is in question and 'answer form!' (2) because the said_ testimony is not approved as correct by the trial judge.

There being nothing in the record showing any error, it is our opinion that the judgment should in all things be 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.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant contends in his motion for rehearing that the statute upon which this conviction is based is too indefinite and uncertain upon which to sustain a conviction, and that it is so vague and uncertain as to come within article 1, § 6, P. C. of Texas; in fact that there is no law denouncing the offense for which appellant was convicted, and that it is not against the law to possess a still for the purpose of manufacturing intoxicating liquor.

We cannot agree with the appellant’s contention, and the opinions of this court in direct conflict with this contention have been so numerous as to make it unnecessary to again write upon this question.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.

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. 
      <§=>For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     