See also Atkins v. State, 94 Okla. Cr. 137, 231 P.2d 406; Jones v. State, 95 Okla. Cr. 323, 245 P.2d 756; Roberts v. State, 95 Okla. Cr. 365, 245 P.2d 759; Martin v. State, Okla. Cr. 268 P.2d 320; Hood v. State, Okla. Cr. 270 P.2d 368. In Holder v. State, 75 Okla. Cr. 202, 129 P.2d 872, this Court said: "Defendant was driving the car at the time and the officer testified that he ordered defendant to stop by reason of a traffic regulation; that when he went to the car he saw the liquor on the floor board of the car; that the dome lights of the car were burning and he immediately arrested the defendant.
They had a right to stop the defendant for violating the city ordinances, and when they approached the defendant's car and saw the whisky they had a right to seize the same. See the recent cases of Holder v. State, 75 Okla. Cr. 202, 129 P.2d 872; Golden v. State, 75 Okla. Cr. 121, 129 P.2d 202; Saffa v. State, 75 Okla. Cr. 19, 128 P.2d 241; Franklin v. State, 71 Okla. Cr. 115, 109 P.2d 239; Sands v. State, 36 Okla. Cr. 55, 252 P. 72; Barfield v. State, 68 Okla. Cr. 455, 99 P.2d 544, and other cases therein decided. Most of defendant's brief is devoted to his proposition that the defendant was charged with the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor and was sentenced for unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, which constituted a material variance requiring a reversal of this case.