Case ID: tex-crim_56/html/0022-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "RAMSEY, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Coley Ellis v. The State.
    No. 4081.
    Decided April 14, 1909.
    Local Option—Death of Judge—Statement of Facts.
    Where upon appeal from a conviction of a violation of the local option law the record showed an agreed statement of facts, there was no merit in the contention that the trial judge had died subsequent to the trial and before the statement of facts was made up; there being no bill of exceptions in the record showing that appellant had been deprived of any right by reason of the death of said judge.
    Appeal from the County Court of Johnson. Tried below before the Hon. F. E. Adams.
    Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the local option law; penalty, a fine of $100 and fifty days confinement in the county jail.
    The opinion states the case.
    No brief on file for appellant.
    
      F. J. McCord, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
   RAMSEY, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the County Court of Johnson County on a charge of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors therein in violation of the local option law. On conviction he was fined $100 and imprisoned in the county jail for fifty days.

That appellant sold intoxicating liquors to the person named in the indictment is placed beyond dispute by the testimony, nor was there any evidence raising the issue, as claimed by appellant, of mere agency. Nor is there any merit in the contention that because Judge Adams, who was presiding at the trial of the case, had died subsequent thereto, and before the statement of facts was made up, that this necessarily entitled appellant to a new trial. In this case there was an agreed statement of facts filed. So that it is inconceivable that in this regard any injury or injustice was done appellant by reason of the death of Judge Adams. There is no bill of exceptions in the record, nor is there any claim that appellant was deprived of bills of exception by reason of the death of the judge presiding. There is no merit in any of the contentions of appellant, and it is clear that the case should be affirmed, which is now done.

Affirmed.