Case ID: sw2d_288/html/0063-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORRISON, Presiding Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mrs. Elmer HARDY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
    No. 28025.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 8, 1956.
    R. E. Murphey, Coleman, for appellant.
    ' Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin,, for the State. .
   MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

.The offense is the sale of whiskey in a dry area; the punishment, 30 days in jail and a finé of $400.

Inspector Hynd of the Liquor Control Board testified that on the day charged in the information he went to,the appellant’s home in the City of Santa Anna and purchased a pint of whiskey and paid her $5 for the same.

The appellant, testifying in her own behalf, denied that Hynd had ever come to her house or that she had ever sold him any whiskey.

■ The jury resolved this dispute in the evidence against the appellant, and we find the evidence sufficient t<? support the conviction.-

We shall discuss the contentions raised in the appellants brief. ' '

Appellant made an oral motion to discharge the jury panel because they had been selected by disqualified jury commissioners. She made no effort to' produce any facts iñ ' support- of such motion. Nothing is- presented for review by such1 a bill of exception. .

Appellant contends that, the evi-' dence is insufficient to support the allegations. of the information as to where the sale -was made. The - pleader alleged a-great many unnecessary details as, to the exact location of where the sale was made, but we have concluded that such allegations were supported by the following proof from the witness Hynd:

“Q. When you were in- Coleman County, about .that time, or on, that occasion, were you in the City of .Santa Anna? A. I was.
* * * * * • *
“A. I saw her at the Hardy residence.
“Q. Where ..is, that? A. It is located oh the north’ side of Highway No. 67, and near, the east edge of the-City of Santa Anna.”

Appellant’s last two contentions are that the punishment was excessive and would work a hardship on the appellant’s children. We are aware of no rule of law that would authorize this Court to reverse a conviction upon such grounds.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.