
    JACKSON v. STATE.
    (No. 9277.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 25, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied April 15, 1925.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;>1092(8) — Bills of exception, not filed within time allowed by trial court’s order, held not timely.
    Bills of exception, not filed within the time allowed by trial court’s order, held not timely.
    2. Criminal law &wkey;>l092(9) — Extending time to file statement of facts did not include time for filing bills of exception.
    Extension of time within which to file statement of facts helé not to include time for filing bills of exception.
    3. Intoxicating liquors &wkey;a236( 19) — Convie- ’ tion of manufacturing warranted.
    Evidence helé to sustain judgment of conviction of manufacturing! intoxicating liquor.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    4. Criminal law <&wkey;HI0'(6), 1133 — Appellate court cannot grant rehearing to permit appellant to have omitted matters inserted in minutes of trial court order.
    Appellate court, by agreement, or, if necessary, by writ of certiorari, can have record corrected to correspond with that in trial court, but cannot grant rehearing in order that appellant may have matters omitted inserted jn minutes of trial court order.
    Appeal from District Court, Archer County ; H. R. Wilson, Judge.
    C. H. Jackson was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Heyser & Hicks and Davenport, Cummings & Thornton, all of Wichita Palls, Richard Dresser, of Austin, and H. R. Bunnenberg. for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

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

The term of the trial court ended October 18th, and in the order overruling the motion for new trial appellant was granted 60 days in which to file a statement of facts and bills of exception. Just prior to the expiration of this 60-day period appellant obtained an order from the court granting him additional time in which to file a statement of facts, which said order contains no mention of the bills of exception. The five bills of exception appearing in this record were each filed on January 13th following the adjournment of- court. Manifestly they were filed too late.

Two witnesses testified for the state that they found'appellant occupied in working at a part of the machinery of a still which was in operation. The still was of about 150-gallon capacity, and from its worm whisky was running into a barrel nearly half full of, the liquor. Appellant was his own only witness, and denied having anything to do with the still, but averred that his presence there was for the sole purpose of getting a drink. The evidence supports the verdict.

The judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant seeks a rehearing in order that he may have inserted into the order of the trial court extending the time for filing statement of facts and bills of exception, certain things which he now insists were omitted from said order as it appears on the minutes. We know of no way by which the trial court, after appeal and affirmance here, may change his orders made during the trial term. When the record on appeal differs from the record made in the trial court, by agreement, or, if necessary, by writ of certiorari, this court can have the record here corrected to correspond with the record in the trial court, but we regret that we know of no way by which we can afford appellant the relief sought, and, inasmuch as his contention is based entirely upon that proposition, the motion must be overruled. „ 
      ©c^For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     