Case Name: HANSON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-10-31
Citations: 255 S.W. 743
Docket Number: No. 7529
Parties: HANSON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 255
Pages: 743–744

Head Matter:
HANSON v. STATE.
(No. 7529.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 31, 1923.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 5, 1923.)
1. Criminal law <&wkey;l086(I4)— Refusing special charges not .deemed error; record showing no exception.
Appellant cannot complain of the refusal of special charges requested by him, where neither by a separate bill of exceptions, nor by any notation in connection with said charges, does it appear that the action of the trial court in refusing the charges, was excepted to.
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Criminal law <&wkey;I09l (I I) — Bill of, exceptions, in question and answer form, not considered.
The court did not err in refusing to consider appellant’s bill of exceptions, which were in the question and answer form, where the bill was not accompanied by a statement of the trial judge, that the questions and answers were for the purpose of elucidating facts or questions set forth therein, or the issue or question involved in the same, as required by Code Cr. Proe. 1911, art. 846.
3. Intoxicating liquors &wkey;>239(l)—Charge on manufacture of whisky held sufficient, where neither requested charge nor exception,were sufficient.
In a prosecution for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, a charge that, if the jury found from the evidence that defendant took some dinner to be delivered to two strangers at a still, where he was arrested, and defendant had no interest in the still or the manufacture of whisky therein, he should be acquitted, is sufficient, where the special charge offered by defendant thereon was incorrect, and the exception to the given charge was insufficient.
<Ss»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
Appeal from District Court, Stephens County; C. O. Hamlin, Judge.
J. H. Hanson was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Y. D. ShurtlefC, of Breckenridge, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
From a conviction for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor with a penalty of three years, this appeal is brought.
The evidence amply supports the proposition that appellant was engaged in the manufacture of intoxicating 'liquor at the time alleged in the indictment and testified to by the witnesses.
There are but two bills of exception, each of which is in question and answer form, and the Assistant Attorney General objects to their consideration for this reason. The objection of the state is sustained. Rylee v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 482, 236 S. W. 744.
Appellant asked two special charges which were refused. Neither by> a separate bill of exceptions, nor by any notation appearing in connection with either of said charges, is it made to appear that the action of the trial court in refusing the charges was excepted to. If the refusal was satisfactory to the appellant at the time, he cannot complain now.
Finding no error in the record, an affirmance will be ordered.