Case Name: JEFFERSON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-01-08
Citations: 152 S.W. 908
Docket Number: 
Parties: JEFFERSON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 152
Pages: 908–909

Head Matter:
JEFFERSON v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 8, 1913.)
1. Criminal Law (§ 1124 ) — Conclusion oe Judge — Bill oe Exceptions.
Where evidence adduced on a motion for a new trial is not in the record, the conclusion of the judge thereon in approving the bill of exceptions must be accepted.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2946-2948; Dec. Dig. § 1124. ]
2. Criminal Law (§ 923 ) — New Trial — Objections to Juror — Waiver.
It is too late to raise for the first time on a motion for a new trial an objection that a juror was not a resident of the county.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent.Dig. §§ 2225-2237; Dec.Dig. § 923. ]
Appeal from District Court, Falls County; Richard I. Munroe, Judge.
Jake Jefferson was convicted of crime,, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank Oltorf, Co. Atty., and Tom Con-nally, both of Marlin, and C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other eases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dee. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HARPER J.
Appellant was prosecuted under an indictment charging him with murder, and convicted of manslaughter.
The only matter complained of in a way we can review it is presented in bill of exceptions No. 1, wherein it is claimed that. W. H. Blaylock was an incompetent juror, in that he was not a legal resident of Falls-county at'the date of this trial. The testimony adduced when this motion was heard is not brought up in the record; eonsequent ly, we must accept the conclusion of the judge on the evidence. In approving the bill he states: "On the presentation to the court of the affidavit attached to defendant's motion for new trial, and upon the hearing of said motion, the court heard oral testimony as to the qualification of the juror Blaylock. The juror testifies that he had lived in Marlin, Balls county, Tex., prior to 1911; that he married there and lived there afterwards; that he moved to Taylor, Tex., and lived- for a while, but removed to Marlin' in December, 1911; that he moved all of his household goods, etc., to Marlin; that he went to Oklahoma, intending, if he should find a satisfactory business location, to live there; that he left his household goods at Marlin, and regarded Marlin as his home until such a time as he should find a satisfactory location and should establish a permanent home; that he paid his poll tax in Palls county, Tex., in January, 1912; that he did not find a satisfactory location in Oklahoma, and for that reason returned to Marlin, and was residing there at the time of being summoned as a juror. The court, after hearing the evidence and the testimony of the juror, found as a fact that the jur- or's legal residence was in Palls county, Tex., and that he was a qualified juror in said cause." The defendant accepts the bill as qualified by the judge, and the testimony not being before us, and the record being in this condition, we must conclude that the court did not err in holding the juror a legal resident of Falls county and a qualified jur- or. In addition to this, it is too late to raise it for the first time in motion for new trial.
The judgment is affirmed.