Case Name: EDWARDS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-03-05
Citations: 209 S.W. 743
Docket Number: No. 5342
Parties: EDWARDS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 209
Pages: 743–743

Head Matter:
EDWARDS v. STATE.
(No. 5342.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 5, 1919.)
1. CRIMINAL Law <&wkey;i097(4) — Appeal-Insufficiency or Evidence — Statement of Pacts.
The Court of Appeals cannot pass on the question of, the insufficiency of the evidence, where there is no statement of facts. .
2. Intoxicating Liquors &wkey;>239(9) — Criminal Prosecution — Instructions.
A contention that the court failed to charge affirmatively that prohibition was in force when the offense was committed is without merit, where the charge, filed in November, 1918, states that the sale of liquors has been prohibited in the county since the spring of 1910.
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Bowie County; P. A. Turner, Judge.
T. S. Edwards, Jr., was convicted for violation of the local option law, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
E. A. Berry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
In this case appellant was convicted in the criminal district court of Bowie county for violation of the local option laws, and his punishment fixed at one year's confinement in the penitentiary.
The case is before us on appeal without statement of facts or bill of exceptions. The motion for new trial raises but two questions, to wit, the insufficiency of the evidence, and also that the court erred in failing to charge affirmatively that prohibition was in force when the offense was committed.
We cannot pass upon the first question raised because there is no statement of facts. Dpon the second, we find upon examination of the court's charge that in the very first paragraph thereof the court stated, "The sale of intoxicating liquor has been prohibited by law in Bowie county, Tex., since the spring of 1910." This charge was filed on November 13, 1918, and seems to negative the second contention made by appellant.
There being no error in the judgment of the lower court, the same is affirmed.
<©=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes