Case Name: J. W. Morton v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-06-24
Citations: 101 Tex. Crim. 577
Docket Number: No. 9376
Parties: J. W. Morton v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 101
Pages: 577–580

Head Matter:
J. W. Morton v. The State.
No. 9376.
Delivered June 24, 1925.
Reinstated. Delivered October 21, 1925.
1. —-Possessing Intoxicating Liquor — Appeal Bond — Defective—Cause Dismissed.
Where an appeal bond fails to desoribe the offense of which the appellant stands charged, this court is without jurisdiction to pass upon the merits of the appeal, and for tjhat reason this cause must he dismissed. Appellant is granted fifteen days in which to file in the trial court a new and sufficient appeal bond. See Art. 923, C. C. P.
2. - — Same—Appeal Bond Filed — Cause Reinstated.
' Having filed a good and sufficient appeal bond within the time granted by this court, the appeal is reinstated, and the dismissal will be set aside, and the case will be considered on its merits.
3. —Same—Evidence—Held Sufficient — To Support Conviction.
Where on a trial for possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, the testimony discloses that appellant was seen sitting in his automobile, and on being approached by officers who requested permission to search his car, he refused such permission, but stated that there was whisky in the car, and upon search being made by the officers twelve quarts were found under the rear seat, the conviction is amply supported.
4. —Same—Charge of Court — Requested Charge — Properly Refused.
Where the defensive theory is fully and correctly submitted in the main charge of the court, a requested special charge covering the same issue is properly refused, and especially so when such requested charge does not present a correct statement of the law.
5. —Same—Evidence—Where Conflicting — Province of Jury.
Where under the evidence of the state an offense is established against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, aind the evidence of the appellant, ii accepted as true would exculpate him, the conflict is a question for the jury, under proper instructions by the trial court, to determine and in such cases this court will not disturb the verdict' of the jury.
Appeal from the District Court of Bowie county. Tried below before the Hon. Hugh Carney, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction of the possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; penalty, four years in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Geo. W. Johnson, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover C. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
The conviction is for the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of four years.
The appeal bond is insufficient to give this court jurisdiction to pass upon the merits of the case in that the bond fails to describe the offense of which the appellant stands charged. We have therefore no choice but to dismiss the appeal.
Permission is granted the appellant to file'in the trial court a new bond in compliance with Art. 903, C. C. P., and to forward to this-court a duly certified copy thereof within fifteeh days from this date, whereupon the dismissal will be set aside and the case reinstated ; otherwise the order of dismissal will become final. See Art. 923, C. C. P.