On Motion for Rehearing by Plaintiff in Error.
We deem it essential only to note that in our analysis of the testimony"'and conclusions therefrom we were mindful of the fact that as regards the state’s cross-action the burden of proof rested upon it to support its allegation that the oil in question was illegally produced. The testimony of some of appellant’s witnesses that the oil consisted of products on hand'prior to December 5, 1934, was contradicted by other facts and circumstances in evidence, of a most persuasive and convincing nature, as set forth in our original opinion. Whatever the burden resting upon the state, we hold that it was amply met.
The constitutional questions reiterated in the motion are more fully discussed in our opinion this day handed down in Skipper-Bivens Oil Company v. State, 115 S.W.2d 1016.
The motion is overruled.
Overruled.