Case ID: tex-crim_108/html/0378-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, Judge. LATTIMORE, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lee Frier v. The State.
    No. 11164.
    Delivered November 16, 1927.
    Rehearing denied January 4, 1928.
    1. — Possessing Still, Etc. — Bills of Exception — Time for Filing — Extending Time — Rule Stated.
    Where the time granted to appellant in which to file his bills of exception^ has expired, the trial court is without authority to grant any further time. In this case the order granting an extension of time was made after the expiration of the • 60 days originally granted, and appellant’s bill cannot be considered.
    ON REHEARING.
    2. — Same—Companion Case.
    This is a companion ease to cause No. 11163, Jess Frier v. State, motion for rehearing in which was overruled. The motion in the instant case is based on exactly the same grounds as those in said Jess Frier case, and for the same reason this motion for rehearing is overruled.
    Appeal from a conviction in the District Court of Kaufman County. Tried below before the Hon. Joel R. Bond, Judge.
    Appeal from a conviction for possessing a still and equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, penalty one year in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    No brief filed for appellant.
    
      A. A. Dawson, State’s Attorney, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for possessing a still and equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, punishment one year in the penitentiary.

The facts seem to sufficiently support the jury’s conclusion of guilt. Just across a turn-row and adjacent to the farm which appellant was cultivating officers discovered a still, mash, and signs of use, and the road leading from appellant’s home down to the immediate vicinity of the still gave evidence of travel. They watched the still and saw appellant and his son come to same and begin to remove the tops from the barrels and discuss how much they should make, etc. The facts support the verdict and judgment.

Appellant’s motion for new trial was overruled March 31, 1927, and he was given sixty days in which to file bills of exception. Said sixty days expired May 30, 1927. On May 31 the trial judge entered an order granting further extension of time in which to file such bills of exception. The time originally granted having expired before the extension order was made, the trial court was without authority to make same. Míreles v. State, 98 Tex. Crim. Rep. 396. It is to be regretted that we can not consider the bills of exception.

No error appearing in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

This is a companion case to cause No. 11163, Jess Frier v. State, motion for rehearing in which is this day overruled. The motion for rehearing in the instant case is based on exactly the same grounds as those in cause No. 11163, supra. For the same reason the motion for rehearing is overruled.

Overruled.