Case Name: COOK v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1926-03-24
Citations: 281 S.W. 1053
Docket Number: No. 10039
Parties: COOK v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 281
Pages: 1053–1054

Head Matter:
COOK v. STATE.
(No. 10039.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 24, 1926.)
Porter & Porter, of Greenville, and C. Everett Bryson and J. A. Guest, both of Pitts-burg; for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORB, J.
Conviction in district court of Camp county of possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.
The record presents two bills ,of exception, each complaining of the refusal of the court to instruct the jury not to consider testimony, claimed to have been obtained in vio lation of the law. We are not in accord with the contention of appellant in either instance. According to the testimony, it is shown without contradiction that appellant, riding in a stripped-down Ford car, approached the place where the state witness was. Upon being ordered to halt, appellant jumped out of the car, having a gunny sack in his hand with two gallons of whisky in same. Appellant ran away leaving the whisky in the road. It was picked up by the state witness, who testified that the contents of the sack was whisky, and that he picked it up in the road where appellant dropped it. We perceive nothing in this testimony even remotely suggesting that it was obtained in violation of law. The proposition seems too plain to need citation of the statute or discussion of its . application.
The evidence amply sustaining the verdict, the judgment is affirmed.