The offense is the unlawful possession of beer, whiskey, gin, vodka and wine in a dry area for the purpose of sale; the punishment, 365 days in jail and a fine of $1,000.

The reeord contains no bills of exception.

The statement of facts is in narrative form and reflects that evidence was introduced showing that the area was dry; that when officers arrived at the premises of the appellant he said: “Come on in. I have plenty to sell,” and the officers found in appellant’s possession 43 quarts of beer, 7 one-half pints of whiskey, 4 one-half pints of gin, 4 one-half pints of vodka and 47 ji quarts of wine, which was introduced in evidence.

Also, a witness testified that on the date alleged in the complaint and information and prior to the raid by the officers, he purchased a bottle of wine from appellant.

The evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction.

The statement of facts being in narrative form, no informal bills are before us for review. Owen v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 361, 350 S.W.2d 542; Bobbitt v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 206, 283 S.W.2d 946; Redding v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 53, 274 S.W.2d 712; Art. 759a, § 2 Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P.

The judgment is affirmed.

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellant insists that the errors upon which his appeal is predicated are now *154presented to this court by a bill of exception contained in a supplemental transcript filed in the cause since our original opinion was delivered on April 13, 1966.

On April 18, 1965, there was filed with the clerk of this court an instrument under the hand and seal of the clerk of the county court of Andrews County, dated April 15, 1965, in which instrument it is certified that:

“* * * the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of:

Notes taken by Deputy County Clerk at time of Trial

as the same is taken from the original instruments filed in Cause No. 2813, County Court Criminal.”

The instrument in such form does not constitute either a formal or an informal bill of exception, under Article 760d or 759a of Vernon’s Annotated Code of Criminal Procedure, which were in force at the time of appellant’s trial and conviction, and therefore the instrument cannot be considered.

The motion for rehearing' is overruled.

Opinion approved by the court.