Case Name: D. Celli v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1910-03-02
Citations: 60 Tex. Crim. 311
Docket Number: No. 487
Parties: D. Celli v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 60
Pages: 311–314

Head Matter:
D. Celli v. The State.
No. 487.
Decided March 2, 1910.
Rehearing Denied November 16, 1910.
1. —Sunday Law — Sale of Intoxicating Liquors — Statement of Facts.
Where, upon appeal from a conviction of a violation of the Sunday law, there was no statement of facts on file properly approved, objections with reference to the court’s charge and the insufficiency of the evidence, can not he considered.
2. —Same—Indictment—Time Alleged — Then and There — Words and Phrases.
Where, in a prosecution for a violation of the Sunday law, the indictment alleged in general terms that the defendant was a liquor dealer, etc., without giving the date, but averred the time properly by hour and date when the alleged sale took place, the objection that the words then and there were not employed with sufficient certainty as to show the defendant was engaged in the illegal sale of liquor, was untenable, as it was not important as to where in the indictment the date was spelled out. Distinguishing State v. Slack, 30 Texas, 355.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Galveston. Tried below before the Hon. E. R. Campbell.
Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the Sunday law; penalty, a fine of $25.
The opinion states the case.
James B. & Charles J. Stubbs, for appellant.
On the question of the insufficiency of the indictment: Code Crim. Procedure, article 439, clause 6; Hardin v. State, 4 Texas Crim. App., 355; Miller v. State, 55 Texas Crim. Rep., 174, 115 S. W. Rep., 578; State v. Slack, 30 Texas, 355.
John A. Mobley, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
McCORD, Judge.
Appellant was tried and convicted in the court below for keeping open his house after midnight on Saturday night and before five o'clock a. m. of the following Monday and selling intoxicating liquors, he, the said Celli, being a liquor dealer and having a license authorized by the Act of the Thirtieth Legislature, and was then and there engaged in the sale of liquors, beers, etc., in quantities less than a quart, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $25.
We find in the record a statement of the facts, but the same is not signed and approved by the judge trying the case and in this state of the record we can not consider the same.
In the motion for a new trial appellant complains that the court erred in refusing to charge the jury as requested by appellant to the effect that they would disregard the hearsay testimony that had been offered on the part of the State; and, second, that the court erred in not granting a new trial because the evidence was wholly insufficient to support the verdict. Neither of these grounds can be considered in the absence of a statement of facts.
The bill of indictment seems to be in conformity with the usual precedents and in the absence of a statement of facts there is nothing in the record that can be revised.
The judgment of the lower court, therefore, is affirmed.
Affirmed.