Case Name: C. C. Crosby v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-12-19
Citations: 98 Tex. Crim. 75
Docket Number: No. 7362
Parties: C. C. Crosby v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 98
Pages: 75–78

Head Matter:
C. C. Crosby v. The State.
No. 7362.
Decided December 19, 1923.
Rehearing denied June 25, 1924.
1. —Transporting Intoxicating Liquor — Statement of Facts — Bills of Exception — Practice on Appeal.
The corrections in the record have obviated the obstacles to the consideration of the statement of facts and bills of exception.
2. —Same—Evidence—Accomplice.
Where, upon trial of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor, the same occurred at a time when all participants therein came within the rule of an accomplice witness, and such was the status of the State’s witness relied upon, and the so-called corroborating testimony went no further than to express the opinion that it was intoxicating liquor, and was more of a suposition or theory, this testimony should have been withdrawn as requested and the corroboration failed to support the accomplice’s testimony, and the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.
Appeal from the District Court of Dickens. Tried below before the Honorable J. H. Milam.
Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
W. H. Bledsoe, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, Attorney for the State, and Grover C. Morris, Assistant Attorney for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
— The offense is the transportation of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of one year.
The State's Attorney objects to the consideration of the statement of facts and bill of exceptions for the reason that neither is shown to have been filed in the trial court. Unless they were filed papers and were filed within the time prescribed by law, this court would be unauthorized to consider them. The record fails to show their filing. See Childress v. State, 92 Texas Crim. Rep., 215, 241 S. W. Rep., 1029; Oliver v. State, 58 Texas Crim. Rep., 50.
In the absence of bills of exceptions and statement of facts which may be considered, the record reveals nothing for review.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.