
    LUCAS v. STATE.
    (No. 8987.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 13, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 14, 1925.)
    
      1. Intoxicating liquors <@=>236(19) — Evidence of equipment found held sufficient to support conviction for possessing equipment necessary to make liquor. 1
    Evidence of equipment found in accused’s place held, to be ample to support'conviction for possession of equipment necessary to make intoxicating liquor.
    2. Criminal law <@=>l 119(4) — Failure of bill of exceptions to set out argument objected to presents nothing for review.
    Bill of exception to argument of district attorney, not setting out such argument, nor in any way showing its applicability, presents nothing for review.
    3. Criminal law <@=31086(14) — Nothing presented for review where exception to refusal of requested charges not shown.
    Where it does not appear, either by notation on special charges requested, or by separate bills of exception, that when such charges were refused appellant excepted, nothing is presented for review.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    4. Intoxicating liquors <@==>137 — Absence of cold water from still does not show lack of necessary part of equipment for making liquor.
    Absence of cold water from a still,' through failure of worm to be extended at time, does not show such a lack of any necessary part of equipment as to prevent conviction for possessing equipment for making of intoxicating liquor.
    ,<@=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Appeal from District Court, Taylor County; W. R. Ely, Judge.
    
      C. E. Lucas was convicted of possessing equipment for the making of intoxicating liquor and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    T. A. Bledsoe, of Abilene, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover O. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Taylor county of possessing equipment for the making of intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.

The facts appear ample to support the conclusion reached by the jury. Mash, a still consisting of a boiler, coil, etc., together with many empty fruit jars and some containing whisky in the house, were found at appellant’s place. There is no brief on file for the appellant. The record contains one'hill of exceptions apparently reserved to the argument of the district attorney. The bill does not set <5ut the argument, nor is there any statement of fact in such bill, regarding it or its applicability or otherwise which would bring anything before us for review. There were some special charges requested, but neither by notation thereon nor by separate bills of exception does it appear that when such charges were refused appellant excepted to same. There appear in the record what purports to be other bills of exception which are marked, “Refused,” by the trial judge, and which are not ’in form to present anything for our consideration.

Finding no- error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

The equipment found in appellant’s possession was entirely sufficient to manufacture intoxicating liquor, save and except that the worm was not extended at the time through any cold water. We would not regard the absence of the cold water as evidencing the lack of any necessary part of the equipment. The jury’s conclusion that appellant was guilty of possessing equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor seems to us to be fully supported by the testimony, and the motion based on the claimed insufficiency of the testimony is overruled.  