Case ID: sw_141/html/0224-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HARPER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JENKINS v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 29, 1911.)
    Criminal Law (§ 1090*) — Appeal and Error-Bill of Exceptions — Necessity.
    An objection to evidence in a criminal ■prosecution will not be considered on appeal, in the absence of a bill of exceptions.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2803-2827; Dec. Dig. § 1090.*]
    Appeal from Sabine County Court; T. R. Smith, Judge.
    Charlie Jenkins was convicted of violating the local option law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. H. McGown and Goodrich & Lewis, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was indicted, charged with violating the local option law, and upon conviction his punishment was assessed at a fine of $50 and 20 days imprisonment in the county jail.

Appellant moved to quash the indictment on the same grounds as he did in the indictments in the cases of Jenkins v. State, 141 S. W. 222, 223, this day decided by Presiding Judge Davidson, and by Judge Prendergast. For the reasons assigned in those cases, we hold the court did not err in overruling the motion.

The ground in the motion for a new trial, complaining that the court erred in admitting the testimony of the witness Hammond, cannot be considered by us, as no bill of exception was reserved to the action of the court in admitting the testimony.

The only other ground in the motion is that the testimony is insufficient to sustain the conviction. If the witnesses for the state are to be believed, they bought from appellant a bottle of “Paul Jones whisky,” and paid him $1.50 for it.

The judgment is affirmed.