Case ID: tex-crim_96/html/0659-01.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

Andrew Unger Sr. v. The State.
    No. 8059.
    Decided February 13, 1924.
    1. —Unlawful Manufacture of Intoxicating Liquor — Continuance—Bill of Exceptions.
    In the absence of a bill of exceptions, the refusal of an application for continuance will not be reviewed on appeal.
    2. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
    Where, upon trial of unlawfully manufacturing intoxicating liquor, the evidence sustained the conviction, there is no reversible error.
    
      [Rehearing denied March 26, 1924. Reporter.]
    Appeal from the District Court of Knox. Tried below before the Honorable J. H. Milam.
    Appeal from a conviction of unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    
      D. J. Brookreson and J. S. Kendall, for appellant.
    On question of continuance: Hodde v. State, 8 Texas Crim. App., 382.
    
      Tom Garrard and Grover C. Morris, Assistants Attorney General, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Knox County of the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without bills of exception. There is a short brief complaining of the refusal of a continuance. This court uniformly holds that in order to render availing an objection to the refusal of a continuance, a bill of exceptions must be taken, else we conclude that overruling of such application is acceptable to the accused. No bill of exceptions having been reserved to the court’s action in this "particular, the complaint is without merit.

The statement of facts amply shows the guilt of the accused. Stills and large quantities of liquor were found upon his place by a searching party. He testified in an attempt to ascribe the manufacture to his brother, but in their province the jury have seen fit to decline to accept his statement and we see no reason to doubt the sufficiency of the testimony to support the conclusion of guilt.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.