Case Name: DODSON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1915-03-17
Citations: 174 S.W. 1048
Docket Number: No. 3479
Parties: DODSON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 174
Pages: 1048–1049

Head Matter:
DODSON v. STATE.
(No. 3479.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 17, 1915.
On Motion for Rehearing, April 7, 1915.)
1. Criminal Law <@=>1088 — Appeal—Record-—Statement ot Eaots.
A statement of facts cannot be considered-on appeal from the denial of motion for new trial, when not filed during term time.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2676, 2746-2751, 2757, 2766, 2782-2802, 2899; Dec. Dig. <@=>1088J.
2. Criminal Law <§=1004 — Review — Decision or- Lower Court — Contention Not-Made Below.
In a prosecution for violating the local option law, where the statement of facts on motion for new trial showed that the contest was directed to the question of defendant’s guilt in making a sale, and not to the question whether the local option law was in effect in the county at the time of the alleged sale, such latter contention could not be relied on on appeal from-denial of the motion.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Criminal-Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2676-2684; Dec. Dig. <©=>• 1064.]
Appeal from Nolan County Court; Jno. I-I. ■Cochran, Jr., Judge.
Earnest Dodson was convicted of a misdemeanor, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
W. E. Ponder, of Mt. Pleasant, for appellant. O. C. McDonald, Asst Atty. Gen., for tlie State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, J.
Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law, his punishment being assessed at a fine of $25 and 20 days' imprisonment in the county jail. He pleaded guilty. On motion for new trial he moved the court to set aside the plea as entered and hear the case on plea of not guilty. This was refused. As presented this was not error. The court tried the cause on waiver of jury by appellant. There was some testimony introduced, which is found in the record. It raises the question of agency. The court decided this against appellant. In view of the record, we believe the court was justified in finding against this contention.
The judgment is affirmed.
<g=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes