75 So. 421 | La. | 1917
Defendant having been convicted of “keeping a blind tiger,” and duly sentenced, prosecutes this appeal, but has put in no appearance in this court, by counsel or otherwise.
We find in the transcript a bill of exception to the overruling of defendant’s objection to the following question propounded by the prosecution to a state witness, to wit:
“Did you find a number of empty bottles in the back yard and in the rear of defendant’s premises at the time she was arrested on the charges herein made against her.”
The question was not objected to as leading, but on the grounds that the bottles referred to were on defendant’s premises prior to the date of the offense charged, and had served in a previous prosecution and conviction.
The objection was frivolous and was properly overruled.
The other bill was reserved to the overruling of a motion in arrest of judgment which alleges:
That the indictment charges four distinct offenses in one count.
We have been able to discover but one.
All of the grounds thus stated, save the last, were considered, and held to be not well taken, in State v. Nejin, 140 La. 793, 74 South. 103, and the rulings in that ease are affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.