Plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in tbe county court of Roger Mills county of tbe crime of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and bis punishment fixed by tbe jury at a fine of $240 and imprisonment in tbe county jail for 50 days.

Tbe evidence of tbe state was that tbe defendant was seen to conceal some glass jars in some weeds beside tbe fence on tbe inside of tbe premises of a Mr. Kell; that this fact was reported to tbe sheriff, and that tbe sheriff and tbe county judge and tbe wife of tbe county judge secluded themselves in a place where they could watch for tbe return of the defendant to where this stuff was concealed; that defendant came up to where tbe officers were concealed, driving a different car, and went through tbe gate into tbe premises of Kell and up to tbe place where these jars were concealed; that tbe officers followed behind defendant’s car; that defendant stopped and got out of bis car and went over to where tbe jars were concealed and picked them up, concealing them under bis *319 coat, and started back towards bis car; that when be saw tbe officers be ran to tbe car and set tbe jars inside of tbe car; that thereupon tbe sheriff arrested defendant, and defendant said: “You know me, Frank, I am not a bad fellow; I know when I am caught.” That after the officer arrested defendant, be searched tbe car and found two half-gallon jars full of whisky.

Defendant on bis motion to suppress tbe evidence testified that- tbe car was not his, that he was outside of tbe car when the sheriff arrested him, and that if there was anything in the car be did not know it.

Defendant filed timely motion to suppress tbe evidence for tbe reason that tbe same was obtained upon an unlawful search and seizure, because made without a search warrant and without any warrant of arrest, and alleges tbe overruling of said motion as a ground of error in bis appeal.

The officers possessed sufficient information to authorize them to arrest tbe defendant without a warrant, and, having arrested him, the seizure of the liquor under the facts disclosed in the case was legal and the same was admissible in evidence.

Section 7014, C. O. S. 1921, not only gives the officers the right, but makes it their duty, to arrest without a warrant where the offense is being committed in their presence. Rambo v. State, 38 Okla. Cr. 192, 259 Pac. 602; Carter v. State, 43 Okla. Cr. 44, 279 Pac. 690; Rhodes v. State, 46 Okla. Cr. 219, 287 Pac. 812.

Defendant testifying on his motion to suppress the evidence said that the car was not his; that he had borrowed it to make the trip to' Kell’s place; that he had stopped the car and was out of it at the time of his ar *320 rest; and that be did not know tbe liquor was in tbe car. Assuming this statement of facts to be true, tbe defendant could not object to tbe search of tbe car after bis arrest.

For tbe reasons stated, tbe cause is affirmed.