Case Name: BOYD v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-12-17
Citations: 162 S.W. 850
Docket Number: 
Parties: BOYD v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 162
Pages: 850–851

Head Matter:
BOYD v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 17, 1913.
On Motion for Rehearing, Jan. 14, 1914.)
1. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 131 ) — Violation on Local Option Law — Nature of Offense.
A violation of the local option law adopted at an election held prior to the amendment of the law making it a felony to sell liquors in prohibition territory is a misdemeanor.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 140, 161; Dec. Dig. § 131. ]
2. Criminal Law (§ 1038 ) — Questions Reviewable — Instructions.
On appeal in a misdemeanor case, complaints of the charge in the motion for new trial cannot be considered where no exception to the charge was reserved, nor special charge requested.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2646; Dec. Dig. § 1038. ]
3. Criminal Law (§ 1054 ) — Appeal—Exceptions — Rulings on Evidence.
On appeal in a misdemeanor case, the admission of testimony cannot be considered where no exception was reserved to the ruling.
[Ed._ Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2662-2664; Dec. Dig. § 1054. ]
4. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 236 ) — 'Violation of Local Option Law — Evidence—Sufficiency.
The testimony of a state’s witness on a trial for violating the local option law, that he bought whisky from accused, sustains a conviction, though his further examination weakened his statement.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 300-322; Dec. Dig. §. 236. ]
On Motion for Rehearing.
5. Criminal Law (§ 1112 ) — Record on Appeal — Ex Parte Affidavits.
A statement of facts, agreed to by the county attorney and accused’s counsel, and approved by the county judge, cannot be impeached by ex parte affidavits; but the court on appeal must take the record as made on the trial of ^he ease, and certified to it.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2896; Dec. Dig. § 1112. ]
Appeal from Upshur County Court; W. H. McClelland, Judge.
A. B. Boyd was convicted of violating the-local option law, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Warren & Briggs, of Gilmer, for appellants C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes-

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $25, and 20-days' imprisonment in the county jail.
In Upshur county it is a misdemeanor to sell intoxicating liquors, the election having been held prior to the time that the law was amended making it a felony to sell intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory; and the record must be passed on as applicable to misdemeanors.
No special charge was requested, and no exception to the charge as given was re served; consequently tlie complaints of tlie charge in the motion for a new trial cannot be considered.
No exceptions were reserved to the introduction of testimony; therefore the only ground in the motion we can take into consideration is the one complaining of the sufficiency of the testimony.
The witness Lennie Gibbs testified, "Yes, I bought a pint of whisky from Mr. Boyd;" and, while his further examination might tend to weaken this statement, yet that was a question for the jury, and not for us.
The judgment is affirmed.