Case Name: WALLACE v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-10-07
Citations: 279 S.W. 832
Docket Number: No. 8323
Parties: WALLACE v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 279
Pages: 832–833

Head Matter:
WALLACE v. STATE.
(No. 8323.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 7, 1925.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 10, 1926.)
Benson & Dean, of Breckenridge, and Wright Morrow and Chas. L. Black, both of Austin, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover 0. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Conviction is for the sale of intoxicating liquor to one Ashemore, with punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary.
The only hill of exception in the record complains of the court's action in permitting the state to propound to Ashemore leading questions. The bill shows that this character of examination was permitted because the, witness was hostile to the state. If a witness is hostile, unwilling, or reluctant, it is within the sound discretion of the court to permit leading questions on direct examination. Navarro v. State, 24 Tex. App. 378, 6 S. W. 542. Por collation of other authorities, see section 158, Branch's Ann. P. C. It occurs to us that the witness revealed all the characteristics which permit leading questions.
The only other question raised is that the evidence is not sufficient to support the conviction. Our examination of it leaves no such impression. It is patent that the alleged purchaser was an unwilling witness, and it was with difficulty the state elicited his evidence; but it is positive to the point that he purchased whisky and paid for it by cheek, which he says he thinks was delivered to appellant. A woman was present and took part in the transaction. The evidence supports the theory that she and appellant were acting together as principals in the sale. Two officers who were outside the house saw Ashe-more write a check and deliver it to appellant, and heard Ashemore say to appellant "Now, save me another pint for to-morrow morning," to which appellant replied, "All right, I will have it for you."
Some mention is made in appellant's brief of certain comments and action of the learned trial judge during the examination of Ashemore. These matters were not made the subject of exception, hence are not reviewable.
The judgment is affirmed.