Case Name: CHUMLEY v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1915-02-24
Citations: 174 S.W. 345
Docket Number: No. 3440
Parties: CHUMLEY v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 174
Pages: 345–345

Head Matter:
CHUMLEY v. STATE.
(No. 3440.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 24, 1915.)
Criminal Law <⅞=>1064½ — Appeal — Questions Presented for Review.
Where defendant’s bill of exceptions to the overruling of his motion for new trial showed that one of the grounds of the motion was that the attorney who represented the state was one of the grand jury panel which found the indictment, but this was in no way substantiated other than by a ground of the motion, signed by defendant’s attorney and not sworn to by any one, no error was presented.
(Ed. Note. — Eor other eases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2676, 2887, 2948; Dec. Dig. &wkey;1064%.]
Appeal from Sabine County Court; J. B. Lewis, Judge.
Henry Oliumley was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory, and appeals.
Affirmed.
See, also, 70 Tex. Cr. R. 50, 155 S. W. 534.
C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen, for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, P. J.
Appellant was convicted for making an illegal sale of intoxicating liquors in said county after prohibition was in force as a misdemeanor, and his punishment assessed at the lowest prescribed by law.
Appellant has a bill of exceptions to the overruling of his motion for a new trial. The motion was based on these grounds: Eirst. That the attorney who represented the state in this case was one of the grand jury panel which found the indictment against appellant. This is in no way substantiated other than by merely a ground of the motion for new trial signed by his attorney and not sworn to by any one. It presents no error. Second. He claims the verdict is contrary to' the law. Third. He claims the verdict is contrary to the evidence and not supported by it. And, fourth, he claims the defendant's defense was that he acted as agent merely for the purchaser, and did not make the sale of intoxicating liquor. All these questions were properly submitted by a charge as favorable to him as the law would authorize, and the jury found against him. There is ample and positive testimony that he made the sale alleged, and the evidence is amply sufficient to sustain the verdict.
The judgment is therefore affirmed.