Lead Opinion
Conviction for selling intoxicating liquor; punishment, one year -in the penitentiary.
A witness testified positively to the fact that he bought from appellant a pint of whisky.
There are three bills of exception. The first complains of the refusal of the court to quash the indictment. The complaint is based on the proposition that the jury commissiоners who drew the grand jury were not authorized so to do. The court heard evidence. The facts showed that at the July term, 1929, jury commissioners were duly appointed, and that they drew the grand jury for the September term, same being the next succeeding term. This was in accordance with thе provisions of Title 7, C. C. P., providing for the organization of а grand jury.
Bill of exception No. 2 complains of the fact that after appellant had refused to enter his plea to the indictment, the court had the plea entered for him. If we understand the bill appellant suggested to the court, in accordance with Art. 496, C. C. P., that he was not indicted under his true name, and upon such suggestion the court had appellant’s name corrected in the indiсtment to correspond with that suggested, and if we comрrehend it, the court also suggested that the other records be corrected so as to make them spеak the same fact. We think this latter proceeding wholly unnecessary, but not of that erroneous character that would call for a reversal. It is sufficient in such case that the record show an order of the court dеclaring that appellant suggested that his name is not сorrectly stated, and that the indictment was made to аccord with the suggestion of the accused.
Appеllant’s third bill of exception complains of the faсt that in his address to the jury the prosecuting attorney called two of them by their names. The bill does not set out what wаs said further, or make known to us any possibility of injury.
No reversible error appearing the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Addendum
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
The apрellant was indicted on September 26, 1929, in the District Court of Hays County, and *217 was tried on October 14, 1929. He challenged the vаlidity of the indictment upon the ground that at the July, 1929, term of cоurt, the jury commissioners were instructed by the court to selеct petit jurors for the second week of the July term and also to select grand jurors, special venire аnd petit jurors for the September term of court. There was compliance with these instructions. The indictment wаs also challenged because of an improper indorsement of the envelope.
It is the duty of the jury commissioners to select grand jurors for the succeеding term. This is declared in Art. 338, C. C. P. In the present instance, the grand jurоrs for the September term were selected at the July term. If the act of the jury commission in selecting petit jurоrs for the July term was irregular, the right of the appellant to make complaint of it is not perceived. He was not tried by a petit jury so selected.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.
Hawkins, J., absent.