Case ID: tex-crim_105/html/0063-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nellie Overley v. The State.
    No. 10075.
    Delivered May 5, 1926.
    1. —Sale of Intoxicating Liquors — Jurors — Held to Be Qualified.
    Where, on a trial for the sale of intoxicating liquor, appellant, without objections; accepted a number of jurors, who had sat in a case of the same character against another party,-she will not be . heard to complain of such jurors for the first time after the verdict is returned.
    2. —Same—Bill of Exception-r-Incomplete — No Error Presented.
    Where a bill of exception complains of a question asked of the principal state’s witness by counsel for appellant, which was excluded by the court, and the bill fails to disclose what the answer of the witness would have been had he been permitted to answer the question, such bill presents nothing that can be reviewed by this court.
    Appeal from the District Court of Grayson County. Tried below before the Hon. Silas Hare, Judge.
    Appeal from a conviction for the sale of intoxicating liquor, penalty two years in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    
      J. P. Cox of Sherman, for appellant.
    
      Sam D. Stinson, State’s Attorney, and Robert M. Lyles, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction in the District Court of Grayson County of selling intoxicating liquor, punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.

Three bills of exception appear in the record. The first complains of the fact that a number of jurors who sat on the trial of this case, had sat in a similar case wherein Juanita Overley was charged with an offense of the same character, which was tried on the day of the instant trial. The bill of exceptions is qualified by the learned trial judge, who states that there was no objection or suggestion on the part of this appellant that she was not satisfied to try her case before the jurors mentioned. No motion was made to set them aside, or to disqualify them in any way. The bill of exceptions presents no error.

The second bill of exceptions presents appellant’s complaint of a question asked of the principal state witness, by counsel for appellant. The bill shows .that the court sustained the objection. It is not shown what the answer of the witness would have been to the question had he been permitted to answer. This bill presents nothing for our review.

The remaining bill of exceptions covers two pages and is in question and answer form, which has been uniformly held to be improper.

The evidence supports the conclusion of the jury.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.