295 S.W. 1097
BLAKELEY 
v. 
STATE.
(No. 11009.)
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 15, 1927.
        Commissioners' Decision.
        Appeal from District Court, Freestone County; W. T. Jackson, Judge.
        A. R. Blakeley was convicted of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.
        Levi Herring, of Fairfield, for appellant.
        Sam D. Stinson, State's Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State's Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
        BAKER, J.
        The appellant was convicted of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor, and his punishment 
assessed at 1 year in the penitentiary.
        The record is before us without any bills of exception, and the only issue submitted for our 
consideration is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. The record discloses that the 
appellant, his son, Claud Blakeley, and Roy Jackson were intercepted by the officers as they were leaving 
appellant's home in a Ford automobile, and that when the officers stopped the car and demanded that the 
parties get out, the appellant stated:
        "There is nothing in the car but a gallon of whisky, and it don't belong to us. It belongs to a man 
over on the pipe line. He didn't have any way to carry it into town, and he give it to me to bring it home 
with me and to bring it back to him this morning."
        The whisky was found in the car, and all of the parties were placed under arrest.
        The evidence upon the trial did not differ materially from the statement made by appellant at the 
time of his arrest, and was to the effect that the whisky was carried from where the parties were working 
on the pipe line to the home of appellant on the evening
Page 1098
before the arrest, and at the time of the arrest was being carried back to the pipe line to be delivered, 
according to appellant's testimony, to a man who was in charge of the workmen on the pipe line. The 
evidence further shows that the appellant, before he reached home on the preceding evening, was 
apprised that the whisky was in the automobile, and that he also knew that the whisky was being 
transported at the time of his arrest. The court properly charged the law relative to principals, and we are 
clearly of the opinion that under appellant's testimony, as related upon the stand and as incorporated in 
his res gestæ statement at the time of his arrest, he was connected criminally with the transportation of 
the whisky in question.
        Finding no error in the record, the judgment of the trial court is 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.