Case Name: MOORE v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1916-10-18
Citations: 188 S.W. 978
Docket Number: No. 4187
Parties: MOORE v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 188
Pages: 978–979

Head Matter:
MOORE v. STATE.
(No. 4187.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 18, 1916.)
1. Ceiminal Law <§=>1090(7) — Denial oe Continuance — Bill oe Exceptions — Review.
Denial of a continuance is not reviewable where no bill of exceptions was reserved to the ruling.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 3204; Dec. Dig. <§=>1090(7).]
2. Ceiminal Law <§=>1090(8) — Rulings on Evidence. — Bill oe Exceptions.
The admission of alleged improper testimony is not reviewable where there is no bill of exceptions showing that the ruling was excepted to at the trial.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2816, 3204; Dec. Dig. <§=> 1090(8).] •
Appeal from District Court, Lamar County ; Ben H. Denton, Judge.
Della Moore was convicted of pursuing the occupation of selling intoxicating liquor in prohibition territory, and she appeals.
Affirmed.
C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
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 cannot 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 case, and under such circumstances the matters are not presented in a way we are authorized to act thereon.
The judgment is affirmed.
<S=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes