Coleman v. State (10 S.W.2d 559, 1928)

CHRISTIAN, J.

Tbe offense is possession of intoxicating liquor for tbe purpose of sale; tbe punishment, confinement in tbe penitentiary for one year and three months.

Operating under a search warrant, officers discovered in appellant’s room approximately four gallons of whisky. Appellant was in tbe room at tbe time tbe search was made.

Bill of exception No. 1 complains of tbe admission of tbe testimony of tbe officers, the ground of objection being that tbe affidavit upon which tbe search warrant was based was insufficient. Tbe affidavit and search warrant are not set out in tbe bill. The substance of said instruments is not given. It follows that tbe bill fails to show that error was committed. Fisher v. State (Tex. Or. App.) 1 S.W.(2d) 301.

Bill of exception No. 2 complains of -tbe action of tbe court in permitting tbe negro porter to testify that be told one of tbe officers that he could get some whisky in appellant’s room. It is stated as a ground of objection that tbe conversation bad between tbe officer and tbe porter was out of tbe presence and bearing of appellant. There is nothing in tbe bill to verify tbe truth of tbe objection. A mere statement of a ground of objection in a bill of exception is not a certificate of tbe judge that tbe facts which form tbe basis of tbe objection are true; it merely shows that such an objection was made. Branch’s Annotated Penal Code of Texas, § 209, p. 134; Buchanan v. State, 107 Tex. Cr. R. 559, 298 S. W. 569.

Finding no error, tbe judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM. Tbe foregoing opinion of tbe Commission of Appeals has been examined by tbe judges of tbe Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.