Case Name: JONES v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-11-26
Citations: 216 S.W. 183
Docket Number: No. 5586
Parties: JONES v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 216
Pages: 183–183

Head Matter:
(86 Tex. Cr. R. 261)
JONES v. STATE.
(No. 5586.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 26, 1919.)
1. Intoxicating liquors @=>236(13) — Evidence THAT LIQUOB WAS INTOXICATING.
In p prosecution for violating local option law, a witness’ testimony that he bought what he believed to be a bottle of whisky of one accused, and facts and circumstances showing that it was whisky and that witness became intoxicated from the use of the contents of the bottle, held sufficient.
2. Cbiminal law @=>1090(7) — Necessity of BILL OE EXCEPTIONS.
There was no error shown in refusal of continuance because of the absence of an alibi witness for whom no process had issued, where no bill -of exceptions was reserved to the overruling of the application.
Appeal from District Court, Houston County; John S. Prince, Judge.
Bud Jones was convicted of violating the local option law, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law and awarded one year in the penitentiary.
The state's case is made by the testimony of the alleged purchaser. Appellant offered no testimony. The state's witness testified he bought a bottle of whisky, or what he believed to be whisky, from the appellant, and the facts and circumstances show that it was whisky. It seems the witness became very much intoxicated from the use of the contents of the bottle. We think the evidence is sufficient.
Appellant asked the court for a continuance on account of the absence of his mother, by whom he expected to prove an alibi. There was no process issued for the mother, and he relied upon her promise to attend court to testify in his behalf. There was no bill of exceptions reserved to the action of the court in overruling the application for continuance, There is no error shown in this matter.
The judgment will be affirmed.
<S=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes