Scott v. State
114 S.W.2d 565
Tex. Crim. App.
1938
Check Treatment

I. O. SCOTT V. THE STATE

No. 19398

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Delivered February 16, 1938

Rehearing denied March 23, 1938

134 Tex. Crim. 193

speed, and, according to the testimony, he seemed to have increased such speed until he was moving at the rate of seventy-five or eighty miles per hour. In his flight he soon reached Gatesville, and reducing his speed to about sixty miles per hour, he went through the town. He again accelerated his speed to about seventy miles until he struck a muddy road, and in his haste he finally got out of the ruts in the road and mired down in the mud, and was captured by the sheriff. Both of the officers place his speed at about the same rate, and he would doubtless have outdistanced them had it not been for the unfortunate selection of the muddy road. It seems to us that his complaint should have been directed to the Highway Department relative to the upkeep of the muddy highways rather than to the sufficiency of the evidence.

It seems to us that the evidence is sufficient, and the motion will be overruled.

The opinion states the case.

Tom L. Robinson, of Gatesville, and H. S. Beard, of Waco, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State‘s Attorney, of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, JUDGE.----The offense is transporting whisky in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $100.

According to the testimony, the arresting officers observed appellant driving his automobile on a public highway at the rate of about 75 miles per hour, and undertook to arrest him. Appellant‘s car finally bogged down in soft ground and the officers arrested him. Upon searching his car they discovered a quantity of whisky.

Upon the trial appellant objected to the testimony of the officers touching the result of the search on the ground that they had no search warrant. The officers had the right to arrest appellant without a warrant for driving his car on a public highway more than 45 miles per hour. The officers had no knowledge that he was transporting whisky and were not seeking to arrest him for that offense. They testified that they pursued appellant and arrested him because of the fact that he was operating his car at the rate of speed we have heretofore mentioned. The arrest being legal, the contemporaneous search of the automobile was warranted. See

;
;
.

We deem it unnecessary to discuss the remainder of appellant‘s bills of exception.

A careful examination of the record leads us to the conclusion that reversible error is not presented.

The judgment is affirmed.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

GRAVES, JUDGE. ----Appellant has only one complaint in his motion, and that is as to the sufficiency of the testimony. We see no useful purpose in discussing the same. Suffice it to say that after a careful review of the testimony, we think it sufficiently shows that he unlawfully transported six cases of whisky in a dry area, and this motion is therefore overruled.