Case Name: BOSTICK v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-06-13
Citations: 255 S.W. 422
Docket Number: No. 7801
Parties: BOSTICK v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 255
Pages: 422–423

Head Matter:
BOSTICK v. STATE.
(No. 7801.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 13, 1923.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 7, 1923.)
On Motion for Rehearing.
1. Criminal law &wkey;!092(9)— Bills of exceptions.considered when timely filed, though not approved by court during trial term.
Where, within the 30 days allowed by Code Cr. Proe. 1911, art. 845, for the filing of bills of exceptions after the overruling of a motion for a new trial, an additional 30 days was granted by the court, bills of exceptions filed within such extended time may properly be considered on appeal, though they were not approved by 'the trial court at the time they were filed or during the trial term.
2. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;146(l) — -Ownership of liquor unlawfully sold will not affect guilt of seller.
In a prosecution for selling intoxicating liquor, the ownership of the liquor sold does not affect the question of defendant’s guilt in making the sale.
• <§cs>For other cases see same topi'c and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; C. A. Pippen, Judge.
Luke Bostick was convicted of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor, and be appeals.
Affirmed.
Jno. R. Francis, of Fort Worth, and H. D. Wood and A. H. Mount, both of Dallas, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The offense is the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.
We find no statement of facts, .and the state's counsel objects to the consideration of the bills of exception, for the reason that they were not filed within the time allowed bylaw. The court adjourned an eight weeks' term on the 31st day of March, 1923. The motion for new trial was overruled on the 26th day of January. Under the law, appellant was automatically given 30 days thereafter within which to file his bills of exception. See article 845, C. C. P. They were not filed until the 29th day of March. In the absence of an extension of the time allowed' by law within 30 days from the overruling of the motion for new trial, the bills filed are not entitled to consideration. This court has no authority to consider them. See Palmer v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 640, 245 S. W. 239; Sanders v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 34, 129 S. W. 605; Griffin v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 425, 128 S. W. 1134; Jones v. State (No 7660) 255 S. W. 419, not yet [officially] reported.
No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.