In the prosecution for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, there are many conditions which might arise rendering the proof of sale of whisky relevant and material, and in the absence of any reasons stated in the bill of exceptions as to why such proof was not admissible, the legal presumption is in favor of its admission by the trial court. — Following Brown v. State, 83 Tex. Crim. 451, and other cases. 2. — Same — Evidence — Practice on Appeal.
Ford v. State, 40 Tex.Crim. Rep.; Brown v. State, 83 Tex. Crim. 451; Branch's Ann. Texas P. C., p. 134, sec. 209. See also Cavanar v. State, 269 S.W. Rep. 1053.
Rep.; Vernon's Texas Crim. Stat., Vol. 2, p. 542, note 29, subdivision 4; Anderson v. State, 83 Tex.Crim. Rep.; Brown v. State, 83 Tex. Crim. 451; Branch's Ann. Texas P. C., p. 134, sec. 209. If the appellant was under arrest, his verbal statement in the nature of a confession was not admissible upon the issue of insanity.
Where, upon trial of murder and a conviction of manslaughter, defendant requested the trial court to require the State to permit him to inspect certain letters which he had written, in possession of the sheriff, stating that they were necessary in the preparation of the case, held, that in the absence of information upon the subject in the bill of exceptions, this court must assume that the ruling of the trial court declining such inspection was not harmful. Following Brown v. State, 83 Tex. Crim. 451, and other cases. 2. — Same — Charge of Court — Self-Defense — Defendant's Standpoint.