Case Name: TAYLOR v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-06-04
Citations: 265 S.W. 152
Docket Number: No. 8206
Parties: TAYLOR v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 265
Pages: 152–153

Head Matter:
TAYLOR v. STATE.
(No. 8206.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 4, 1924.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 22, 1924.)
f. Criminal law <¿=>1091 (4) — -Bill of exceptions to refusal to limit evidence must show necessity of limiting.
Bill of exceptions to refusal to limit evidence must show it should have been limited.
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Criminal law ©=>1091 (I I) — Bill of exceptions in question and answer form must be accompanied by statement of necessity of such form.
Bill of exceptions in question, and answer form, to be considered, must, under Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proe. 1916, art. 846, be accompanied by trial court’s statement of necessity of such form to clear understanding of point involved.
3. Criminal law ©=>829(1) — No need-to give special charges covered by charge given.
Special charged need not be given on issues covered by charge given.
Appeal from District Court, Wichita County; H. R. Wilson, Judge.
Roy Taylor was convicted of violation of liquor law, and appeals.
Affirmed.
Taylor & Taylor and Heyser & Hicks, all of Wichita Palls, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin,, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Wichita county of possessing intoxicating liquor, for the purpose of sale, and his punishment fixed at two' years in the penitentiary.
The facts in evidence amply support the judgment. There are four bills of exception, the first of which is in question and answer form, and under article 846, Vernon's-C. C. P., and many decisions of this court,. cannot be considered. Bill No. 2 complains of the refusal of a motion presented to the learned trial judge, asking him to limit the testimony of state witness Bills to the effect that he drank whisky in Heyser's office, find saw a dry gin bottle in Heyser's office, which had a label on it similar to labels on the bottles in evidence, "to and for the purpose for which the same was admitted." There is an utter lack of showing in the bill of reasons upon which such motion might have been supported. In order to invoke our consideration, a bill must be complete within itself. No reason is shown why the evidence referred to should be limited at all, nor is there suggestion of the purpose for which same was admitted. We must presume, in the absence of objection to the testimony, that there was sufficient reason on the part of the learned trial judge for admitting it, but in the absence of some showing of the purpose for which same was allowed, and that the jury might misappropriate said evidence, we could not determine the matter complained of. Bills Nos. 3 and 4 complain of the refusal of special charges, each of which was fully covered by the main charge of the court.
Finding no error in the record, an affirmance will be ordered.
<S=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes