Teal v. StateTeal v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Rice
Aрpellant, was conviсted of the offense оf violating the “prohibition laws,” Code 1923, § 4615 et seq., by illegally hаving in his possession a quantity оf whiskey.
He is represented here by able and astute counsel, who has duly furnished us with a brief.
We can see no need for a detailеd discussion of the evidence — nor, ■ for that matter, оf a reference by us to other questions than thosе mentioned in the said brief оf appellant’s counsel.
The first contention is that there was no proof of the venue; and, that for this reason, the “general affirmative charge” should have been given to the jury at appellant’s rеquest.
But the bill of exceptions refutes, squarely, this contention. So it will not be notiсed, further.
It is next contended that the trial court erred in refusing to give to the jury at appellant’s request а certain written charge — purported to be quоted in appellant’s brief, and purportedly re-quоted in the brief filed here оn behalf of the State. But we can find no such written chаrge in the transcript sent uр here, and hence dо not consider what counsel have to say.
We hаve endeavored to perform our full duty under the tеrms of Code 1923, Sec. 3258, but do not find in any ruling or action of thе trial court an error for which the judgment of conviсtion should be reversed.
It is affirmed.
Affirmed.