Opinion
No. 20420.
Delivered May 31, 1939. Rehearing Denied June 23, 1939.
1. — Appeal — Statement of Facts or Bills of Exception.
Where the record was before Court of Criminal Appeals without a statement of facts or bills of exception, no question was presented for review.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.2. — Intoxicated Driver — Indictment — Highway.
Allegation of indictment that defendant while intoxicated operated an automobile upon a public highway in a named county, was sufficient as respects the designation of the location of highway.
Appeal from District Court of Denton County. Hon. B. W. Boyd, Judge.
Appeal from conviction for driving an automobile on a public highway while intoxicated; penalty, fine of $50 and confinement in jail for five days.
Affirmed.
The opinion states the case.
W. C. Boyd, of Denton, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Attorney, of Austin, for the State.
The offense is driving an automobile on a public highway while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of fifty dollars and confinement in jail for five days.
The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.
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.
This cause has been heretofore affirmed, there being presented to us neither statement of facts nor bills of exception, and no brief of appellant.
In the motion for a rehearing appellant for the first time complains of the indictment. His contention is that an indictment for driving an automobile while intoxicated upon a public highway of this State should set forth with particularity the name of such highway. We note that appellant was charged with such driving on a public highway in Denton County, State of Texas. We have heretofore held that such an allegation was sufficient to apprise the person charged of the locality of the offense. See White v. State, 95 S.W.2d 429, where we upheld an identical allegation as sufficient. Also see Nichols v. State, 49 S.W.2d 783; Blackman v. State, 20 S.W.2d 783.
The motion is overruled.