61 S.W.2d 121
SIMMONS 
v. 
STATE.
No. 16005.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 31, 1933.
        Commissioners' Decision.
        Appeal from District Court, Freestone County; Lex Smith, Judge.
        Dave Simmons was convicted for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
        Reversed and remanded.
        A. B. Geppert and Ellen Victery, both of Teague, and H. L. Williford, of Fairfield, for appellant.
        Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
        CHRISTIAN, Judge.
        The offense is manufacturing intoxicating liquor; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for 
one year.
        After secreting themselves near a still, officers saw three men in the act of manufacturing 
intoxicating liquor. While these men were engaged in putting mash in the boiler appellant rode up on a 
horse. The officers' testimony was to the effect that appellant asked the men at the still if they had gotten 
everything ready. Further, they testified that appellant said: "I have got this stuff sold and it will not be 
ready. If you do not like your job I will hire some boys to run this thing." The officers said they saw 
appellant pour some mash into the boiler. Appellant finally left the still with the statement that he would 
be back in a little while. The three men remaining at the still were arrested.
        Testifying in his own behalf, appellant admitted his presence at the still, but declared that he had 
gone there for a drink of whisky. He denied that he had any interest in the still, saying that he had in no 
manner aided the parties in manufacturing intoxicating liquor.
        Several witnesses testified that appellant's general reputation as a peaceable and law-abiding citizen 
was good. It is shown in bill of exception No. 1 that, after the witness Bob Holloway had testified that the 
general reputation of appellant in the respect mentioned was good, he was asked the following question 
by the district attorney: "What was Dave Simmons' general reputation in that community down there as a 
manufacturer of intoxicating liquor?" Appellant's objection was overruled, and the witness answered: "I 
heard he made liquor." Several bills of exception disclose that the same question was propounded to other 
witnesses testifying to appellant's good reputation. The matter presents reversible error. Appellant was on 
trial for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and his reputation as a manufacturer of intoxicating liquor was 
not available to prove his guilt. Mitchell v. State, 116 Tex. Cr. R. 249, 32 S.W.(2d) 199, and authorities 
cited. McMullen v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 229, 265 S. W. 582, 583, a similar situation arose. In reversing 
the judgment, this court, speaking through Judge Lattimore, used language as follows: "Nor do we think 
the state can ever prove by other witnesses that the accused has a general bad reputation for doing the 
very thing involved in the charge against him on the trial—in the instant case, the making of intoxicating 
liquor." The statement of the witness that he had heard that appellant made liquor was hearsay.
        The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
        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.