Case Name: HOLMES v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1926-03-17
Citations: 282 S.W. 585
Docket Number: No. 9924
Parties: HOLMES v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 282
Pages: 585–587

Head Matter:
HOLMES v. STATE.
(No. 9924.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 17, 1926.
Rehearing Denied April 21, 1926.)
Jno. L. Poulter, of Fort Worth, for appellant.
Sam D., Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.

Opinion:
BERRY, J.
The offense is the possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, and the punishment is tw'o years in the penitentiary.
The first bill of exceptions complains at the court's action in permitting the constable to testify to the search of the ear which was in the possession of the appellant; his objection, as stated in the bill, is that the affidavit to the search warrant was not properly made out and not properly sworn .to. This bill of exceptions is wholly insufficient to show any error. The search warrant itself is not contained in the bill, and the bill of exceptions wholly fails to point out any matter in which the search warrant is defective.
. Bills of exceptions Nos. 2 and 3 seek to preserve appellant's objections to the introduction of the testimony of the witness Stagner as to the search of the car, but. the bills merely state that the testimony was objected to, and that any testimony relative to what was done under said search warrant was objected to, and same do not even state the grounds of the objections made, any further than above indicated. They are wholly insufficient to show any error.
Appellant also objected to the introduction of the liquor in question; the grounds of the objection being, first, that it was seized under an iliegal search warrant, and, second, because all of the evidence that was seized was not there. No facts are stated in this bill of exceptions which would authorize this court in holding that error was committed in receiving this testimony.
The' special charge offered by1 the appellant was covered, in so far as it was applicable to the facts in 'this case, in the court's main charge.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment is in all things affirmed.
PER CURIAM.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.