Case Name: W. A. McLendon v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-06-17
Citations: 101 Tex. Crim. 663
Docket Number: No. 9316
Parties: W. A. McLendon v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 101
Pages: 663–666

Head Matter:
W. A. McLendon v. The State.
No. 9316.
Delivered June 17, 1925.
Rehearing denied October 21, 1925.
1. —Sale of Intoxicating Liquor — Practice on Appeal.
Where on appeal, the admission of evidence is challenged for the first time in appellants brief, it will not be considered. To authorize a revision on appeal, of the ruling of the trial court in the admission of evidence, it is necessary that it appear by a bill of exception that the evidence was improperly received, over the objection of the accused. Manv authorities will be found collated in Vernon’s Tex. Crim. Stats., Vol. 2, p. 534, note 15. The complaint in a motion for a new trial will not operate as a substitute for a bill of exception. Following Clifton v. State, 70 Tex. Crim. Rep., 346.
on keheahing.
2. —Same—Certiorari—To Correct Record. — Granted.
Where the clerk of the court below omits from a transcript bills of exception, which were properly authenticated and filed, and appellant asks for a writ of certiorari, attaching copies of the1 omitted bills to his motion, same will be granted, and such bills ordered brought forward, and considered.
3. —Same—Evidence—Of Flight — Properly Admitted.
Where evidence of the sheriff to the effect that after appellant was arrested and made bond, an alias-capias was placed in his hands for appellant, and that he found and arrested him in California, no error is shown. Evidence of flight is always permissible, as a! circumstance of guilt.
4. — Same—Evidence—Erroneously Admitted — Harmless Error.
Where on a trial for the sale of intoxicating liquor the main state witness was permitted to testify that he had seen appellant sell whisky to others, prior to his purchase, such testimony of another transaction should not have been admitted, but in view of the fact that appellant presented no defense, did not testify himself, and was given the lowest penalty, the testimony erroneously admitted, does not call for a reversal.
Appeal from the District Court of Orange County. Tried below before the Hon. V. H. Stark, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for the sale of intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Howth, Adams & Hart and John T. Kitchings, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover. C. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
The offense is the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for oiié year.
The purchaser named in the indictment testified as a witness and gave specific testimony to the effect that he purchased whisky from the appellant about the time mentioned in the indictment.
The sufficiency of the evidence is' not challenged but appellant, in his brief, complains of the admission of certain evidence. To invoke and authorize a revision on appeal of the rulings of the trial court upon the receipt of evidence, it is necessary that it appear by bill of exceptions that The evidence was improperly received over the objection of the accused. The precedents upon the subject are numerous-. Many of them will be found collated in Vernon's Tex. Crim. Stat., Vol. 2, p. 534, note 15. The complaint in the motion for new trial will not operate as a substitute for a bill of exceptions. See Clifton v. State, 70 Tex. Crim. Rep. 346, .and other cases collated in Vernon's Tex. Crim. Stat., Vol. 2, p. 535.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.