Case Name: Levo Flores v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1930-11-26
Citations: 116 Tex. Crim. 169
Docket Number: No. 13730
Parties: Levo Flores v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 116
Pages: 169–170

Head Matter:
Levo Flores v. The State.
No. 13730.
Delivered November 26, 1930.
Reported in 32 S. W. (2d) 858.
The opinion states the case.
W. Owen Dailey and Lawrence H. Kenner, both of Houston, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Attorney, of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
Conviction for selling intoxicating liquor; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.
Appellant made a second motion for continuance which was properly overruled. Diligence for the absent witness was not shown. Appellant had another witness present who gave in substance the same testimony as that set up in the application. Subsequent continuances will not be granted for cumulative testimony. Harvey v. State, 35 Texas Crim. Rep. 559; Bearden v. State, 47 Texas Crim. Rep. 276; Sec. 322, Branch's Annotated P. C., and authorities cited.
That Jones, the alleged purchaser, paid for the liquor with money furnished him by another, affords appellant no ground for complaint. Bruce v. State, 39 Texas Crim. Rep. 29; Smart v. State, 49 Texas Crim. Rep. 373; Sec. 1236, Branch's Annotated P. C., and authorities cited.
It was competent for Mr. Mangum, the sheriff, to testify that after the alleged sale he raided the house of appellant's mother where he lived, and that he found there a quantity of whisky. Starbeck v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Rep. 192; Field v. State, 55 Texas Crim. Rep. 527; Branch's Annotated P. C., p. 710, and authorities cited.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Hawkins, J., absent.