— Conviction is for selling intoxicating liquor; punishment one year in the penitentiary.

The proof is positive that appellant sold whisky to one C. J. Skiles the latter’s brother also being present. The Skiles boys were working for the officers. This is undisputed. They solicited the sale of the whisky. The only contention is that they were accomplices, and that the conviction cannot stand on their testimony. The authorities cited by appellant would have been in point and controlling prior to the Act of the thirty-seventh Legislature, 1st and 2d C. S., page 233, Section 2c. By the express terms of that enactment the purchaser, transporter or possessor of intoxicating liquor when a witness, is not an accomplice.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ON REHEARING.

— Chapter ,61, Sec. 1, Acts of the thirty-seventh Leg., Second Called Session, does not make the mere act of reauestine another to give or to sell him intoxicating liquor *417 an offense. One who buys intoxicating liquor is not under the disqualification of an accomplice witness, even though the same be made in response to the request.

The word “solicit” as embraced in the statute mentioned is not sufficiently comprehensive to denounce such act as a crime. See Penal Code, Art. 6; also Webster’s New International Dictionary.

The motion is overruled.

Overruled.