Case Name: Ruby Carroll v. State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1951-11-28
Citations: 156 Tex. Crim. 553
Docket Number: No. 25527
Parties: Ruby Carroll v. State
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 156
Pages: 553–555

Head Matter:
Ruby Carroll v. State
No. 25527.
November 28, 1951.
Rehearing Denied January 9, 1952.
Hon. A. A. Payne, Judge Presiding.
James L. Cutcher, Childress, for appellant.
George P. Blackburn, State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

Opinion:
BEAUCHAMP, Judge.
Appellant was convicted for possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale and assessed a fine of $500.00.
Officers, armed with a search warrant, went to the home of appellant and found two quarts of liquor. Two men were present who, it appears, were transient workers living at some other place, in Texas or out of it. When the case was called to trial she presented a motion for continuance.
The bill bringing this motion to our attention recites that the case had been re-set under an agreement that a motion for continuance would not be made. The bill shows no diligence to get the witnesses. No motion for new trial was filed with affidavits by them that they would testify as set out in the motion for continuance and that the whisky belonged to them. There is no showing that they could be secured at another time. The court did not abuse his discretion.
Further attack is made on the records introduced showing Cottle County to be a dry area. The matters set out and complained of are such as cannot be utilized in a collateral attack and the merits of same are not considered.
Bill No. 3 complains of the introduction of the whisky in evidence because it is alleged that the search warrant is illegal. The grounds for this are not shown and we find nothing in the record to indicate the correctness of the allegation.
Bill of Exception No. 2 complains of the introduction in evi dence, by the clerk, of the record of five prior convictions, all for the sale of intoxicating liquor. Just when these convictions were had is not shown by the record and we are unable to understand the complaint made other than that it was an attack upon her character, which had not been put in issue. These convictions are proper circumstances to substantiate the state's contention that the possession of the liquor was for the purpose of sale. See McDowell v. State, 142 Tex. Cr. R. 530, 155 S.W. 2d 377; Brooks v. State, 138 Tex. Cr. R. 526, 137 S.W. 2d 768.
We find no reversible error and the judgment of the trial court is accordingly affirmed.