Case ID: tex-crim_80/html/0120-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAEPEE, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Della Moore v. The State.
    No. 4187.
    Decided October 18, 1916.
    1. —Occupation—Selling Intoxicating Liquors—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
    Where, upon trial of pursuing the occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, ■ there was no reversible error.
    2. —Same—Continuance—Evidence—Bill of Exceptions.
    In the absence of a bill of exceptions, the overruling of the motion for a continuance, and the introduction of testimony, can not be considered on appeal.
    Appeal from the District Court of Lamar. Tried below before the Hon. Ben H. Denton.
    Appeal from a conviction of pursuing the occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory; penalty, three years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    Ho brief on file for the appellant.
    
      0. G. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
   HAEPEE, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of pursuing the occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory, and her punishment assessed at three years confinement in the State penitentiary.

In the motion for a new trial the appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. If the evidence of J. L. Madding and other witnesses introduced by the State is to be believed, they went to appellant’s place and purchased liquor from her on many different occasions.

No bill of exceptions was reserved to the action of the court in overruling the motion for a continuance, consequently we can not review that ground of the motion for a new trial.

The other two grounds in the motion allege the district attorney was permitted to introduce improper testimony, specifying it. No-bill of exceptions is in the record showing that it was excepted to-during the trial of the ease, and under such circumstances the matters are not presented in a way we are authorized to act thereon.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed*