*1 whiskey dry area, punishment assessed sale of in a the at a of fine $100. judgment which is in the in the absence of
No appeal. jurisdiction this the court is without of appeal The is therefore dismissed.
ON MOTION REHEAR.NG. original case, judgment On the final submission of this no was a now record. This omission has been cured copy herein, judgment proper certified of a entered at the therefore, time inadvertently We, left out the of record. proceed upon to consider case the record. the appears It proof from the the bills of that no dry county area the was offered and is found in the none county attorney statement of facts. is re shown that the quested the to take into their a certain retirement book page the commissioners’ court minutes and turn to proceedings showing prohibition read the election dry. to be These minutes were not introduced and are absence, not found in the Rep. 88, proof the record. In their we have no dry county. status See Jones 154 Tex. Crim. 190; Brigham 225 S. 154 Texas 55, Rep. Crim. Lawrence v. McQueen R.Cr. 162 W. cited. S. cases necessary proof character, This is in a case this proof the failure to make such the motion is granted, dismissing aside, the order cause is set this is now reversed and cause remanded. Jesse Vallsindo Granado March
Rehearing 19,1950. April Denied *2 Austin, appellant. Lee, J. Hubert for Attorney, Austin, George state. Blackburn, P. State’s Appellant unlawfully carrying pistol a was convicted of appeals. $100.00, fined the he sum of There is filed herein. no statement facts gather exception From the we bill nighttime driving was seen an automobile at only flickering headlight, He off. one on and one was approached by highway him patrolmen, who talked to two lights. appel- patrolmen in relative to looked One of the He then arrested lant’s car and appellant on the floor. there found against pistol. carrying filed him for exceptions, to There I which relates is but one bill of car, the search of is then interlined and such bill argument proceeds complain certain with “II” and about a separate and dis- attorney. two contains This bill bill, There- transactions, tinct fore, all one and is multifarious. under same, contravention we it in cannot consider the ruling our in cases. See numerous Shelton R. 150 Tex. Cr. Cr. R. 200 S. White 222; Sharp S. W. Cr. R. Humphrey 152 Tex. p. 253, sec. also Tex. Jur. See brief, many to, Appellant, in makes references from, arresting officers, quotations testimony Unfortunately, us to certain contradictions thereof. there cites in cannot is no statement of facts the record and we furnishing take the statements made a brief as us with go knowledge proven, nor can multifarious the facts we to the therefor. nothing review, find and the will We further affirmed. MOTION REHEARING.
ON WOODLEY, Judge. *3 agree
areWe unable to contention that his presented. multifarious bill should be considered as agree appellant may Nor can we that now amend such bill exception by thereby waiver of thereof and exception relating single transaction, ato and have same by considered this court. may charge observed that the trial court in- jury structed appellant in effect that unless was under arrest searched,
when his car was the evidence obtained inadmissible, search appellant acquitted. Ap- should be pellant except charge. did not to such facts, In the absence of a statement of we must assume that issue, evidence raised was under at the arrest time the was discovered. Appellant’s motion for is overruled. Maynard
Nolan April 19,