Case ID: tex-crim_48/html/0341-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BROOKS, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George Sliger v. The State.
    No. 3045.
    Decided June 7, 1905.
    1. —local Option—Fact Case—C. 0. D. Order.
    Where the evidence in a prosecution for a violation of the local option law showed that a package of whisky had been sent C.O.D. to appellant by express, and he let his friends or neighbors have part of the liquor, they furnishing the money to pay the package out of the express office, the same sustains the conviction.
    2. —Same—Continuance—Practice on Appeal—Diligence—Several Applications—
    Cumulative Testimony.
    In the absence of a statement to the contrary, this court will presume that a motion for continuance is the second application, in passing on the action of the trial court in overruling the same; besides the testimony relied upon was cumulative |ind there was no diligence shown.
    Appeal from the County Court of Comanche. Tried below before Hon. J. H. McMillan.
    Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the local option law; penalty, a fine of $25 and twenty days confinement in the county jail.
    The opinion states the case.
    No brief for appellant.
    
      Howard Martin, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
   BROOKS, Judge.

Conviction of violating the local option law, punishment assessed being a fine of $25 and twenty days confinement in the county jail. The facts show that appellant had a package containing intoxicants in the express office, which had been sent to him 0. O. D.; that he let Condrum have one quart of it, and other parties the remainder. " Condrum and other friends furnished the money to pay the package out of the express office, as consideration for the whisky they received. The facts of this case come strictly within the rule laid down by this court in Dunn v. State, 12 Texas Ct. Rep., 803; Tread-way v. State, 42 Texas Crim. Rep., 466; 2 Texas Ct. Rep., 415.

' Appellant also complains of the overruling of his motion for continuance. In the absence of a statement to the contrary, we will presume it is the second application. There is no diligence shown. Furthermore the testimony was cumulative, as will be seen from a casual inspection of the statement. There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.