Case Name: J. W. Gilmore v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-11-23
Citations: 90 Tex. Crim. 611
Docket Number: No. 6442
Parties: J. W. Gilmore v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 90
Pages: 611–612

Head Matter:
J. W. Gilmore v. The State.
No. 6442.
Decided November 23, 1921.
Rehearing denined January 25, 1922.
1. — Intoxicating Liquors — Transportation—Practice on Appeal — Indictment.
The question of conflict in the provisions of the State and Federal law has been adversely decided to the contention of appellant, following Ex Parte Gilmore, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 529, 228 S. W. Rep., 199.
2. — Same—Indictment—Motion to Quash — Duplicatious Pleading, etc.
Where, upon motion for rehearing, the appellant insisted that the indictment was duplicitious, held: that where a motion to quash, or motion in arrest of judgment was not presented during the trial, appellant cannot raise the same in a motion in this court. Following Berlinger v. State, 6 Texas Crim. App., 181, and other cases.
3. — Same—Rule Stated — Motion in Limine.
The uniform holding of this court is that an objection of this character must be raised in limine and not in this court. Following Coney v. State, 2 Texas Crim. Rep., 62.
Appeal from the District Court of Collin. Tried below before the Honorable F. K. Wilcox.
Appeal from a conviction'of transporting intoxicating liquors; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Reed Williams, for appellant.
Cited: Jasper v. State, 164 S. W. Rep., S51 ■; Ryan v. State, 176 id., 49; Scales v. State, 46 Texas Crim. Rep., 301.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Collin County of the offense of transporting intoxicating liquor in violation of what is known as the Dean Law, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.
The case is before us on appeal without any statement of facts or any bill of exceptions. Appellant's motion to quash the indictment, based on an alleged conflict in the provisions of the Dean Law with the Eighteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, was properly overruled. The question has been passed upon by us adversely to the contention of appellant as appears from his motion. Ex parte Gilmore, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 529, 228 S. W. Rep., 199.
No error appearing in the record the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed. ~
Affirmed.