Case ID: sw_145/html/1189-01.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

PATTON v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 10, 1912.)
    1. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 236) — 'Violation of Local Option Law — Evidence-Sufficiency.
    Evidence held, to support a conviction for selling intoxicating liquors in local option county.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 300-322; Dee. Dig. § 236.]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 1054) — Rulings on Evidence — Bill of Exceptions — Review.
    Where no bill of exceptions is reserved, rulings on evidence are not reviewable on.appeal.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2662-2664; Dec. Dig. § 1054.]
    3. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 233) — Illegal Sales — Evidence—Admissibility.
    Where accused was on trial for selling whisky in a local option county,-, evidence that he had received eight barrels ofv whisky was admissible to show the character of his business; and it jvas not error to fail to limit the effect of the" testimony.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 293-297, 298%; Dec. Dig. § 233.]
    Appeal from District Court, Bowie County; P. A. Turner, Judge.
    Simp Patton was convicted of crime, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Hart, Mahaffey & Thomas, of Texarkana, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r indexes
    
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted of selling intoxicating liquors in a county where the sale of intoxicating liquors had been prohibited by law, and his punishment assessed at one year’s confinement in the state penitentiary.

In the only bill of exceptions, the same questions are raised as to the drawing and selection of a jury as were passed on in the Case of Antonio Colinabo, 145 S. W. 910, recently decided by this court,-and for the reasons there stated it is held that this bill presents no error.

J. J. Brannon testified: That on or about the 26th day of January, 1911, he purchased from defendant in his place of business a pint of whisky. The sheriff testified he saw Brannon go in defendant’s place’ of business and remain in there about five minutes. When he came out the sheriff searched Brannon, and found on him a pint of whisky, after which defendant was arrested. Deputy Sheriff Bryan testified that he searched appellant’s place of business that same day at a later hour, and found in a trunk in a back room 33 pints of whis-ky. Part of it was of the same brand as that taken off of Brannon. The state further showed that defendant on January 11th had received four barrels of whisky at Sul-phur, in the name of J. W. Johnson, and had it hauled and delivered in the back yard of his place of business in' Texarkana, and again on January 20th he had received four more barrels of whisky consigned to the same party. That when the first shipment was received defendant had represented himself to the agent at Sulphur as being named J. W. Johnson, and at the time of the receipt of the second shipment he had delivered an order to the freight hauler, requesting the delivery of the whisky, which order was signed “J. W. Johnson,” thus tracing into his hands during the month of January eight barrels of whisky. Defendant denied selling Brannon any whisky. He admitted ordering the whisky in the name of Johnson, but said he ordered it for a man named Terry, whom he had known in Oklahoma, but who, he said, at the time these shipments were received, was staying in the bottom near Texarkana. That he did not know where he was at the time of the trial.

The evidence amply supports the verr diet, and the matters complaining of the admissibility of certain testimony cannot be reviewed by us, as no bill of exceptions was reserved. It was not error in the court to fail to limit the effect of the testimony that defendant had received eight barrels of whisky. It was admissible as a circumstance in the case tending to show the character of business in which defendant was engaged.

The judgment is affirmed.