Case Name: WAGGONER v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1916-12-06
Citations: 190 S.W. 493
Docket Number: No. 4291
Parties: WAGGONER v. STATE.
Judges: HARPER, J., absent.
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 190
Pages: 493–496

Head Matter:
WAGGONER v. STATE.
(No. 4291.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 6, 1916.
On Motion for Rehearing, Dee. 27, 1916.)
1. Intoxicating Liquors <®=^23S(2) — Prosecution — Sate—Question fob Jury.
In a prosecution for selling intoxicants in a county where prohibition was in force, whether defendant sold intoxicating liquors to the state’s witness, and did not deliver the liquor to him under an agreement that he should order it for 'him, held, for the jury on conflicting evidence.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. § 824; Dec. Dig. <@=>238(2).]
2. Criminal Law <@=>1169(4) — Trial—Credibility oe Witnesses.
The credibility of witnesses was a question for the lower court..
[Ed._ Note. — Eor other cases, see. Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 3077; Dec.Dig. <@=>1159(4).]
3. Criminal Law <@=p829(4) — Trial—Instructions.
Where the court’s main charge, and that specially requested by defendant, which was given, submitted every issue in favor of defendant raised by the testimony, the court properly refused others requested by defendant.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2011; Dec. Dig. <@=>829(4).]
4. Witnesses <@=>344(2) — Impeachment — Single Sale oe Intoxicants.
In a prosecution for selling intoxicants in a county where prohibition was in force, the trial court properly excluded the proposed impeaching testimony by defendant that the staté’s main witness had made a single sale of intoxi1 cants; the offense being merely a misdemeanor, and the witness having been neither indicted nor prosecuted therefor.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. § 1125; Dec. Dig. .@=>344(2).]
6.Criminal Law <@=>1099(5) — New Triai>-Newly Discovered Testimony — Time eor Filing.
Where defendant moved for new trial for newly discovered testimony, and the court heard testimony on the motion during term time, but the testimony was not filed during term time, but nearly 20 days later, the ruling denying a new trial cannot be reviewed.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2876; Dee. Dig. <@=>1099(6).]
6. Criminal Law <@=>938(3) — New Trial— Newly Discovered Testimony.
In a prosecution for illegally selling intoxicants, where a party was present when defendant claimed he made an agreement with the prosecuting witness to order the liquor for him and some additional for himself, testimony of such party who was present was not newly discovered, and so not ground for new trial.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2308; Dec. Dig. <@=>938(3).]
On Motion for Rehearing.
7. Criminal Law <@=>1144(19) — Appeal — Presumption.
Where, in a bill of exception, defendant recites testimony heard on his motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, and that the bill was filed on the day the court adjourned, the Court of Criminal Appeals will presume that it was filed before actual adjournment, so that defendant is entitled to the benefit of the testimony, though his statement of facts was filed after the adjournment.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 277A-2781, 2901, 3037; Dec. Dig. <@=>1144(19).]
8. Criminal Law <@=>829(4) — Instructions.
In a prosecution for illegally selling intoxicants, the court instructed that if defendant agreed to order the whisky in connection with the prosecuting witness, and such witness paid him money at the time the order was made, and, after the whisky came, defendant delivered half to the witness, and requested him to keep defendant’s part of the whisky until he returned home, defendant was not guilty. Held, that such charge clearly embraced the issue that if defendant ordered the whisky, and at the time the order was made the prosecuting witness paid him $5 on the order, or if the jury had a reasonable doubt as to whether such was the case, they should acquit, so that another charge on the issue was properly refused.
[Ed. Note.' — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2011; Dec. Dig. <@=>829(4).]
Appeal from Nacogdoches County Court; J. F. Perritte, Judge.
Johnnie Waggoner was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors in a county where prohibition was in force, and he appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
King & Seale, of Nacogdoches, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, P. J.
Appellant was convicted of the misdemeanor offense of selling intoxicating liquors in Nacogdoches county, where prohibition was in force, and assessed the lowest punishment.
The testimony by the state's witness was positive and unequivocal to the effect that appellant, at the time alleged, sold to him, in said county, intoxicating liquors, and that he did not deliver it to him under an agreement before then that he ordered it for said witness and merely delivered it to him without making any sale. The testimony on the appellant's side disputes this, and he had other testimony corroborating his own. This was a question for the jury and the lower court. They had all the witnesses before them, heard them testify, and saw them while testifying, and their credibility was a question for the lower court, and not this. We cannot, therefore, disturb the verdict.
The main charge of the court, and that specially requested by appellant which was given by the court, submit every issue in favor of appellant that was raised by the testimony, and the court properly refused others requested by appellant. Nor do appellant's objections to the court's charge show any error.
The court properly excluded the proposed testimony by appellant to the effect that the 'state's main witness had made a single sale of intoxicating liquor, for the purpose of impeaching him. The offense, if any, was merely a misdemeanor. He had neither been indicted nor prosecuted therefor. The law is well settled, and needs no citation of cases, to the effect that no witness can be .thus impeached.
Appellant complains that the court erred in not granting him a new trial on the ground of claimed newly discovered testimony. The record shows that the court heard testimony on this during term time in ruling on his motion for new trial. This testimony was not filed during term time, but nearly 20 days later. Hence, under the uniform decisions, and many of them, of this court, such matter cannot be reviewed. How ever, to take appellant's motion and the affidavit of the witness whose testimony was claimed to be newly discovered, it would clearly show that it was not newly discovered, for the affidavit in substance shows that he was present at the time when appellant claims he made an agreement with the prosecuting witness to order for him, and some additional for himself, the liquor the state's witness testified had been sold to him by appellant, and his whole affidavit would exclude the idea that his testimony was newly discovered.
There was no error in the trial, and the judgment is affirmed.
HARPER, J., absent.
©s^For other cases see same topic ana KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
<@=>For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes