Case Name: STONE v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-12-04
Citations: 151 S.W. 811
Docket Number: 
Parties: STONE v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 151
Pages: 811–812

Head Matter:
STONE v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 4, 1912.)
Oriminal Law (§ 1090*) — Appeal—Review-Record.
Grounds of a motion for new trial relating to the admission and exclusion of evidence cannot be reviewed, in the absence of bills of exception.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2653, 2789, 2803-2822, 2825-2827, 2928, 2948, 3204; Dec. Dig. § 1090.*]
Appeal from District Court, Collin County; J. M. Pearson, Judge.
Pearl Stone was convicted of, pursuing the occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory, and she appeals.
Affirmed.
C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
Appellant was indicted, prosecuted, and convicted of unlawfully pursuing the occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory, and her pun ishment assessed at two years' confinement in the penitentiary.
The two grounds in the motion, complaining that the court erred in admitting testimony, and in excluding testimony, cannot be considered by us, as there are no bills of exception in the record.
There was no error in the court refusing the special charges requested. There was no evidence calling for the first special charge; the record not even suggesting that she, in making the sales and pursuing the occupation, was acting under the direction of her husband.
The statutes provide that the purchaser of intoxicating liquor in prohibition territory is not an accomplice; consequently the court did not err in refusing the instruction presenting this issue.
The only ground in the motion complaining of the charge of the court is too general to be considered.
The judgment is affirmed.