From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lindley v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
May 22, 1929
17 S.W.2d 47 (Tex. Crim. App. 1929)

Opinion

No. 12507.

Delivered April 24, 1929. Rehearing denied May 22, 1929.

1. — Possessing Intoxicating Liquor — Bill of Exception — Question and Answer Form — Not Considered.

A bill of exception in question and answer form, without any certificate of the trial judge that such form is necessary in order that any matter may be understood by this court, cannot be considered.

ON REHEARING.

2. — Same — No Error Discovered.

On rehearing we are unable to agree with appellant that our original opinion is contrary to former decisions of this court. In support of its connections, see Jetty v. State, 90 Tex. Crim. 346 and other cases cited.

Appeal from the District Court of Grayson County. Tried below before the Hon. F. E. Wilcox, Judge.

Appeal from a conviction for the possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, penalty, one year in the penitentiary.

The opinion states the case.

J. A. Carlisle of Sherman, for appellant.

A. A. Dawson of Canton, State's Attorney, for the State.


Conviction for possessing intoxicating liquor for purpose of sale; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

There appears in this record but one bill of exceptions which is made up of ten pages of questions and answers without any certificate of the trial judge that such form is in anywise necessary in order that any matter may be understood by this court. Such bill is uniformly held to be in violation of the rules laid down by the statute and decisions of this court. We are not favored with a brief on behalf of appellant. Examination of the facts discloses that same are amply sufficient to support the verdict and judgment.

No error appearing in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

HAWKINS, J., absent.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.


Appellant predicates his motion on the proposition that our opinion is contrary to former decisions of this court, but we are referred to none. The following are a few cases which support our original opinion. Jetty v. State, 90 Tex. Crim. 346, 235 S.W. 589; Snitz v. State, 100 Tex.Crim. R., 272 S.W. 464; Rylee v. State, 90 Tex.Crim. R., 236 S.W. 744; Reese v. State, 94 Tex.Crim. R., 249 S.W. 857, and under Note 23, Art. 667, Vernon's C. C. P., Volume 2, will be found collated thirty-two other cases.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

Overruled.


Summaries of

Lindley v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
May 22, 1929
17 S.W.2d 47 (Tex. Crim. App. 1929)
Case details for

Lindley v. State

Case Details

Full title:SI LINDLEY v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date published: May 22, 1929

Citations

17 S.W.2d 47 (Tex. Crim. App. 1929)
17 S.W.2d 47

Citing Cases

Youngblood v. State

Bills of exceptions Nos. 2 and 3 complain of the action of the trial court in the admission of certain…

McGowan v. the State

Wampler v. State, 28 Texas App., 352, 13 S.W. 144; Thompson v. State, 33 Tex. Crim. 217, 26 S.W. 198; Perry…