Case Name: Angelo Cavaletto v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-06-26
Citations: 99 Tex. Crim. 198
Docket Number: No. 7721
Parties: Angelo Cavaletto v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 99
Pages: 198–200

Head Matter:
JUNE, 1923.
Angelo Cavaletto v. The State.
No. 7721.
Delivered June 26, 1923.
Rehearing denied February 18, 1925.
1. —Transporting Intoxicating Liquors — Evidence—Hearsay—Not Admissible.
Where on a trial for transporting intoxicating liquor, the court refused to permit the wife of appellant to testify that she was taking the liquor home, with her to drink, in order to increase the flow of milk for her baby; that she had been told by a doctor that the drinking of such liquor would so increase her milk, no error is shown. Such purpose not coming within any of the exceptions laid down in our statute and constitution, permitting the transportation of intoxicating liquor.
2. —Same—What is Intoxicating — Question for the Jury.
The jury is to say whether liquor that has been transported is intoxicating, and where the evidence on that issue is conflicting, as it was in this case, this court will not disturb the finding of the jury.
03V EEHEARI3VG.
3. —Same—Rule—Objections to Testimony, — by the State.
Where the grounds of objections interposed by the state, are not set forth in the bill of exception, it is incumbent upon us to presume that every legal objection was made to which said testimony was subject. This rule arises by virtue of the general duty being upon this court to uphold the action of the trial court, unless its erroneous character is demonstrated by the averments in the hill. Under this rule the court did not commit error in excluding the testimony of appellant’s wife, as to her purpose in transporting the liquor in question.
Appeal from the District Court of Palo Pinto County. Tried below before the Hon. J. B. Keith, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for transporting intoxicating liquor, penalty, one year in the penitentiary.
Ritchie & Ranspot, Mineral Wells, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover C. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Palo Pinto County of transporting intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.
The sufficiency of the indictment herein has been passed upon by us in the case of Kitrell TuckeFv. State, No. 7575, opinion this day handed down, on motion for rehearing. The indictment in this ease and in the Tucker ease are similar in form. We do not discuss the sufficiency of the indictment further than to refer to the Tucker case.
There appears a bill of excceptions in this record to the refusal of the trial court to permit appellant's wife to testify that she was taking the liquor in question home with her to drink in order to increase the flow of milk for her baby; that she had been told by a doctor that the drinking of said liquor would so increase her milk. We do not think such testimony could have any legitimate effect in bringing the transportation of the liquor in question within any of the exceptions laid down in our statute or the Constitution, and that the rejection of the testimony was not error.
There was testimony pro and con as to the intoxicating quality of the liquor which appellant had in his car and for the unlawful transportation of which this conviction was had. Such conflicts in the testimony have been resolved against him by the jury. That appellant transported three dozen bottles of choc beer on a public highway in Palo Pinto county, Texas, seems without dispute in the record.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.