Case Name: JARROT v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1914-06-03
Citations: 168 S.W. 95
Docket Number: No. 3155
Parties: JARROT v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 168
Pages: 95–95

Head Matter:
JARROT v. STATE.
(No. 3155.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 3, 1914.
On Motion for Rehearing, June 26, 1914.)
1. Criminal Law (§ 1028 ) — Appeal—Scope of Review.
Where no exceptions were reserved to the introduction of testimony, and no objections were made to the court’s charge, or any special charges reauested, the only question reviewable on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2619, 2620; Dec. Dig. § 1028. ]
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Criminal Law (§ 1208 ) — Punishment— Indeterminate Sentence.
Where accused was convicted of violating the local prohibition law, he was entitled to an indeterminate sentence.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3281-328T, 3289-3295; Dee. Dig. § 1208. ]
Appeal from District Court, Montague County; C. F. Spencer, Judge.
Hugh Jarrot was convicted of violating the local prohibition law, and he appeals.
Sentence reformed on rehearing, and motion overruled.
T. H. Yarbrough, of St, Joe, and J. S. Jameson, of Montague, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
Appellant was convicted of violating the local prohibition law, and his punishment assessed at two years' confinement in the state penitentiary.
No exceptions were reserved to the introduction of testimony, no objections were made to the charge of the court when submitted to counsel, and no special charges were requested. Consequently the only question presented for a review is the sufficiency of the testimony.
The facts and circumstances in evidence fully sustains the verdict, and the judgment is affirmed.