Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Collin County of the offense of transporting intoxicating liquor in violation of what is known as the Dean Law, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.

The case is before us on appeal without any statement of facts or any bill of exceptions. Appellant’s motion to quash the indictment, based on an alleged conflict in the provisions of the Dean Law with the Eighteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, was properly overruled. The question has been passed upon by us adversely to the contention of appellant as appears from his motion. Ex parte Gilmore, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 529, 228 S. W. Rep., 199.

No error appearing in the record the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed. ~

■ Affirmed.

ON REHEARING.

January 25, 1922.

In a motion for rehearing it is insisted that this case should be reversed and dismissed because of the fact that the indictment appears to be duplicitous,.and charge in one count several district offenses. An examination of the motion to quash, presented by the appellant, makes it plain that no such objection was urged to the indictment either by motion to quash or in arrest of judgment. The uniform holding of this court seems to be that an objection of this character must be urged in limine. Coney v. State, 2 Texas Crim. App., 62; Berliner v. State, 6 Texas Crim. App., 181; Rumage v. State, 55 S. W. Rep., 64; Cabineus v. State, 66 Texas Crim. Rep., 409, 146 S. W. Rep., 934; Green v. State, 147 S. W. Rep., 593. This being the only question raised by this motion, and being of opinion that appellant’s position is not sustained, the motion for rehearing will be overruled.

Overruled.