Case Name: Carl Alexander v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1915-10-27
Citations: 78 Tex. Crim. 130
Docket Number: No. 3748
Parties: Carl Alexander v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 78
Pages: 130–131

Head Matter:
Carl Alexander v. The State.
No. 3748.
Decided October 27, 1915.
Rehearing denied November 17, 1915.
1. — Local Option — Bills of Exception — Statement of Facts.
In County Court cases, the time for filing bills of exception and. statement of facts is limited to twenty days after adjournment of court, and this must be predicated upon an order of the court.
2. — Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of a violation of the local option law, the evidence, although conflicting, sustained the conviction, there was no error on that ground.
3. — Same—Law in Force — Reversible Error.
A conviction for a violation of the local option law can riot be had unless it is shown that such law is in force in the territory of the prosecution, and where the statement of facts did not shdw this, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.
Appeal from the Countjr Court of Kaufman. Tried below before the Hon. James A. Cooley.
Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the local option law; penalty, a fine of $25 and twenty days confinement in,vthe county jail.
The opinion states the case.
Chas. Ashtvorth, for appellant.
On question of the insufficiency of the evidence: Daffin v. State, 11 Texas Crim. App., 76; Brownlee v. State, 48 Texas Crim. Bep., 408; Short v. State, 49 id., 244.
C. C. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Judge.
Appellant was convicted for violating the local option law, his punishment being assessed at a fine of $25 and twenty days imprisonment in the county jail.
There is a hill of exceptions in the record to the refusal of the court to permit the prosecuting witness, Evans, to answer the following question: "Did you not have a fight with the defendant that same night after the party at the place where you say the liquor was sold?" He would have, had he been permitted to do so, testified he had such a fight. Appellant contends this was relevant to show motive with which the witness was testifying against appellant. The bill of exceptions can not be considered because it was filed twenty-two days after court adjourned. In County Court cases the time for filing bills of exception and statement of facts is limited by statute, as construed by this court, to twenty days after adjournment of court, and this must be predicated upon order of court. This bill, therefore, can not be considered.
It is contended the evidence is not sufficient. That is sharply an issue. That for the State would justify the conviction, and that for the defendant would show that he did not sell whisky, but got it from another party for the benefit of the people who wanted the whisky, and that be acted as tbeir agent in seeming the whisky and not as a seller. The jury had the right to solve that question and believe the State's witnesses. On that ground this court would not be justified in disturbing the verdict of the jury.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.