Case Name: CROSBY v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-12-19
Citations: 263 S.W. 916
Docket Number: No. 7362
Parties: CROSBY v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 263
Pages: 916–917

Head Matter:
CROSBY v. STATE.
(No. 7362.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 19, 1923.
On Rehearing, June 25, 1924.)
I. Criminal law &wkey;459 — Opinion held not based on sufficient knowledge to¡ authorize its reception.
In prosecution for transporting liquor in fruit jar, testimony of hotel clerk, who saw the fruit jar containing white liquid, that in his opinion the contents were corn whisky, held not based on knowledge, authorizing its reception in evidence. ' s
2. Criminal law <&wkey;5l I (4) — .Objectionable testimony held insufficient to corroborate accomplice.
Where the testimony of a witness, whose opinion that a fruit jar contained whisky was based on insufficient knowledge, was sole testimony on which state relied to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice, conviction was unauthorized.
Appeal from District Court, Dickens County; J. H. Milam, Judge.
C.C. Crosby was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Bledsoe & Pharr, of Lubbock, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The offense is the transportation of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of one year..
The state's attorney objects to the consideration of the statement of facts and bills of exception's, for the reason that neither is shown to have been filed in the trial court. Unless they were filed papers, and were filed within the time prescribed by law, this" court would be unauthorized to consider them. The record fails to show their filing. See Childress v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 215, 241 S. W. 1029; Oliver v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. R. 50, 124 S. W. 637.
In the absence of bills of exceptions and statement of facts which may be considered, the record reveals nothing for review.
The judgment is affirmed.
&wkey;Eor otter cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes