From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Horton v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
May 18, 1938
116 S.W.2d 394 (Tex. Crim. App. 1938)

Opinion

No. 19517.

Delivered March 23, 1938. Rehearing denied May 18, 1938.

1. — Bills of Exception — Evidence.

Bills of exception brought forward by defendant held insufficient, where no evidence was incorporated in said bills to verify the truth of defendant's objections.

2. — Bills of Exception — Objection.

A mere statement of a ground of objection in a bill of exceptions is not a certificate of the judge that the facts which form the basis of the objection are true but it merely shows that such an objection was made.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

3. — Bills of Exception (Corrected) — Filing.

The two documents denominated "Corrected Bills of Exception," attached to defendant's motion for rehearing, could not be considered by Court of Criminal Appeals where they had not been filed in the trial court.

Appeal from the County Court of Upshur County. Hon. J. P. Maberry, Judge.

Appeal from conviction for selling intoxicating liquor in a dry area; penalty, fine of $100.

Affirmed.

The opinion states the case.

W. A. McIntosh, of Gilmer, for appellant.

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


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 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.


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.


Summaries of

Horton v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
May 18, 1938
116 S.W.2d 394 (Tex. Crim. App. 1938)
Case details for

Horton v. State

Case Details

Full title:CHARLIE HORTON v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date published: May 18, 1938

Citations

116 S.W.2d 394 (Tex. Crim. App. 1938)
116 S.W.2d 394

Citing Cases

Jeffers v. State

Then in a separate paragraph the court observed that no statement of facts was before it, apparently a remark…