Case ID: sw_164/html/0850-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PRENDERGAST, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CAMPBELL v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 4, 1914.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 1090) — Bill of Exceptions — Matters Reviewable.
    Complaint, in a motion for new trial, of the exclusion of evidence and of the overruling of a challenge to a juror, not verified by a bill of exceptions, could not be reviewed by the Court of Criminal Appeals.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2653, 2789, 2803-2822, 2825-2827, 2927, 2928, 2948, 3204; Dec. Dig. § 1090.]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 822) — Appeal—Instructions.
    When the court’s whole charge fairly and fully presented every issue raised, isolated parts of the charge presented no error.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1990,1991, 1994, 1995, 3158; Dec. Dig. § 822.]
    3. Criminal Law (§ 829) — Requested Instructions — Given Instructions.
    Requested charges were properly refused, where any matter therein necessary and proper to be submitted was correctly submitted in the main charge.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2011; Dec. Dig. § 829.]
    4. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 141) — Offenses —Business of Unlawful Selling — “Oc-cupatio n” — “Business.”
    Pursuit of the business or occupation of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor in prohibition territory does not require that it be the principal business of the defendant; since the terms “occupation” and “business,” as used in the statute, require only that he follow such business when an opportunity presents itself.
    [Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. § 151; Dec. Dig. § 141. Eor other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 6, pp. 4907, 4908; vol. 1, pp. 915-926; vol. 8, pp. 7593, 7594.]
    5. Criminal Law (§ 829) — Instructions— Suspended Sentence.
    Where the court directed the form of verdict which the jury were to render if they convicted and recommended suspension of sentence, there was no error in- refusing special charges thereon requested by defendant.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2011; Dec. Dig. § 829.]
    6. Criminal Law (§ 982) — Suspended Sentence — “General Reputation of Defendant.”
    Under the Suspended Sentence Law, allowing such sentences on a finding that the general reputation of defendant theretofore was good, and that he had never been convicted of a felony, the “general reputation of defendant” is such reputation for a peaceable, law-abiding man.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2500, 2501; Dec. Dig. § 982.]
    Appeal from District Court, Hill County; Horton B. Porter, Judge.
    P. B. Campbell was convicted of pursuing the occupation or business of selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PRENDERGAST, P. J.

This is an appeal from a conviction for pursuing the occupation or business of selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory. The verdict of the jury affixed the lowest penalty therefor.

The evidence clearly shows that appellant received, during the several months charged in the indictment, large quantities of intoxicating liquors, and that he made, during the same time, many sales thereof; some by the drink, some by the half pint, and greater quantities. The charge of the court submitted every issue raised under the indictment and the law and evidence.

There are no bills of exceptions in the record. By several grounds of the motion for new trial appellant complains of the refusal of the court to permit certain testimony, and to the refusal of the court to sustain his challenge to one juror. None of these matters are verified by bill of exceptions, in the absence of which they cannot be reviewed by this court.

Appellant has several complaints to isolated portions of the court’s charge, but these present no error. When the court's whole charge is taken into consideration, as stated above, it fairly and fully presents every issue that was raised, and is in accordance with the statute, as has many times been held by the decisions of this court. It is needless to cite them.

All of appellant’s special charges were correctly refused by the court. Where they raised any question necessary and proper to be submitted the court submitted it in the main charge, correctly.

The court’s charge on what is meant by pursuing the business or occupation of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory was in accordance with the statute and the many decisions of this court. It is needless to collate them, but see Wilson v. State, 154 S. W. 572, Creech v. State, 158 S. W. 282, and cases therein cited.

The appellant by proper sworn plea filed in time sought to have his sentence suspended in the event of his conviction. The court submitted this to the jury in the following charge: “The defendant having filed herein his sworn statement and plea, alleging bis good, reputation heretofore, and asking for a suspension of bis sentence in tbe event you find him guilty, therefore you are instructed that, if from the evidence you find that the general reputation of the defendant heretofore has been good, and that he has never been convicted of a felony in this or any other state, then, and in that event, if it be by you determined to recommend the suspension of sentence, you may do so in the event you find the defendant guilty; otherwise you will not do so.” The jury found appellant guilty as charged in the indictment, and assessed his punishment at two years in the penitentiary, and did not recommend the suspension of sentence. The court on this question gave to the jury the form of verdict they were to render in case they desired to recommend the suspension of the sentence. The jury, by its verdict, clearly intended not to recommend the suspension of sentence. In view of the court’s charge on the subject, there was no error in refusing the two special charges requested by appellant on that subject.

We think it is clear, taking in view the whole of the Suspended Sentence Law, that what is meant by “the general reputation of defendant” is such reputation for a peaceable, law-abiding man.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.