History
  • No items yet
midpage
Horton v. State
116 S.W.2d 394
| Tex. Crim. App. | 1938
|
Check Treatment

Lead Opinion

The offense is selling intoxicating liquor in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $100.00.

Rogers P. Boyd, an inspector of the Texas Liquor Control *Page 530 Board, testified that on the 17th of April, 1937, he bought a pint of whisky from appellant. The testimony of appellant's witnesses raised the issue of alibi. The proof was sufficient to show that Upshur County was a dry area.

The two bills of exception brought forward are insufficient, in that no evidence is incorporated in said bills to verify the truth of appellant's objections. A mere statement of a ground of objection in a bill of exception is not a certificate of the judge that the facts which form the basis of the objection are true; it merely shows that such an objection was made. Branch's Ann. P. C., Sec. 209; Buchanan v. State, 298 S.W. 569.

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.






Addendum

Attached to the motion for rehearing filed by the appellant are two documents denominated "Corrected Bills of Exception" which he seeks to have this Court consider in lieu of the two bills appearing in the transcript which were held to be insufficient to present the matter of which complaint is made. These bills were not filed in the trial court. Hence, they can not be considered by this Court.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

Case Details

Case Name: Horton v. State
Court Name: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Date Published: Mar 23, 1938
Citation: 116 S.W.2d 394
Docket Number: No. 19517.
Court Abbreviation: Tex. Crim. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.