Case ID: tex-crim_117/html/0131-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAWKINS, Judge. LATTIMORE, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Bailey v. The State.
    No. 13802.
    Delivered January 7, 1931.
    Rehearing Denied February 8, 1931.
    The opinion states the case.
    
      F. G. Vaughn, of Beaumont, for appellant.
    
      Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Attorney, of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, Judge.

— Conviction is for selling intoxicating liquor, punishment being one year in the penitentiary.

The alleged purchaser, by his evidence, made out a complete case and was supported circumstantially by the testimony of his wife. Appellant denied the sale. The issue of fact thus presented was settled by the jury against appellant.

The only bill of exception relates to the argument of the district attorney. The facts apparent from the record, as well as the qualification of the trial judge to the bill manifest no error in the argument complained of.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

— When the attorney for the accused made mention of the interest displayed by the prosecuting attorney, in the prosecution of this case, — and the proof in the record further shows that the alleged illegal sale of intoxicating liquor was made in the immediate vicinity of the home of said prosecuting attorney, it was not error for him to have said that when a man got to bootlegging in a block of his home he had a personal interest in the case. We think the case correctly decided in the first instance, and the motion for rehearing will be overruled.

Overruled.