Case Name: GREEN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1927-10-26
Citations: 300 S.W. 55
Docket Number: No. 11063
Parties: GREEN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 300
Pages: 55–56

Head Matter:
GREEN v. STATE.
(No. 11063.)
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 26, 1927.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 30, 1927.
O. H. Cain, of Liberty, and S. P. Hill and Puller & Puller, all of Houston, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for tbe State.

Opinion:
MARTIN, J.
Appellant] was indicted for tbe sale of intoxicating liquor in Liberty c.ounty, wbicb sale was alleged to bave occurred on tbe lOtb day of December, 1925. This indictment was returned at tbe February term, 1926, of tbe district court of Liberty county. At tbe February term, 1927, of tbe said district court, tbe defendant made wbat be denominates. a subsequent application for a continuance on account of the absence of the witnesses Lucille Harris and Mrs. Leo Green. Tbe application alleges that defendant expects to prove and can prove "that tbe defendant spent the night of December 9th at her home in Houston and left the next morning with some men to go duck bunting at some point near La Porte, returning that night with several ducks they bad killed." Tbe state's testimony shows tbe sale was made in Dayton, Liberty county, on December 10, 1925, about 10 o'clock in tbe morning.
Defendant's bill of exception is qualified by tbe court, as follows:
"This case was reset two or more times at former terms of this court in order to secure the attendance of these witnesses, except the witness Mrs. Leo Green, wife of defendant, who was present during the trial of this case and did not testify.
Tbe bill nowhere shows the distance from Houston to Dayton, and in no wise negatives tbe fact that appellant could bave been at Dayton after leaving the home of tbe witness in Houston at the timp testified by state's witness. Tbe testimony of this witness might be true and yet would not in any way conflict with the state's evidence going to establish tbe guilt of tbe defendant. Bonners v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 35 S. W. 650; Underwood v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 196, 41 S. W. 618. Besides this, tbe bill does not show such an abuse of discretion as tbe law has lodged with tbe court in matters of this kind. Tbe continuance was properly overruled.
By bill of exception No. 1 it is shown that while tbe witness' Remke was on tbe stand, be was asked if there bad not been a complaint filed against him in tbe justice court of Liberty county charging him with a violation of tbe liquor law. This bill does not show whose witness Remke was, nor such circumstances and facts as would show injury to appellant, nor does tbe bill show that a grand jury bad intervened since tbe filing of said complaint with no indictment returned. This bill shows no error.
Tbe judgment of tbe trial court is affirmed.
PER CURIAM. Tbe foregoing opinion of tbe Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of tbe Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by tbe court.