44 S.W.2d 699 | Tex. Crim. App. | 1931
Conviction for possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.
The facts, from the state’s standpoint, were established by the testimony of three witnesses who said that they found upon appellant’s prem
In its rebuttal the State used a witness who testified that all the barrels referred to smelled strong of whisky, and that a mash barrel at the well smelled strong of mash. We think the evidence sufficient to justify the jury in their conclusion of guilt.
There is only one bill of exception in the record, and it sets up that the court erred in refusing to continue the case because of the illness of appellant. We think the court justified in refusing the continuance and that the facts failed entirely to show that appellant was too' ill to stand trial, or that he was in anywise prejudiced by the refusal of the court to continue the case. A doctor who examined appellant said that in all things he appeared normal and gave no evidence of illness. Appellant testified in the case, and we see nothing to indicate that his testimony was not that of a normal and physically capable witness. .
No error appearing, the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.