Case Name: Cleve Yarborough v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-04-22
Citations: 100 Tex. Crim. 480
Docket Number: No. 8938
Parties: Cleve Yarborough v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 100
Pages: 480–485

Head Matter:
Cleve Yarborough v. The State.
No. 8938.
Delivered April 22, 1925.
Delivered on reinstated Appeal May 20, 1925.
Rehearing denied June 17, 1925.
1. —Transporting Intoxicating Liquor — Appeal Dismissed — Defective Caption.
The caption being defective as revealed in record in that it does not state the date of the adjournment of the trial court, the appeal on motion of the state is for that cause dismissed. Following Lowry v. State, 244 S. W. 147.
2. —Same—Transcript Corrected — Appeal Reinstated.
By certificate of the proper official it is now shown that this omission m the caption was the result of lack of knowledge of the parties preparing the transcript. The omission being corrected the appeal is reinstated.
3. —Same—Continuance—Properly Refused.
A motion for a continuance was presented by appellant, on account of the absence of two witnesses. A postponement was granted, and when the case was again called, the motion was renewed, though one of the absent witnesses was present. On the trial one of the co-defendants, the absent witness, was tendered to appellant as a witness and the case against him dismissed, but appellant refused to use him as a witness. There was no error in refusing the continuance.
4. —Same—Special Judge — By Agreement — Held Qualified.
Where a regular judge is disqualified, under Sec. 11 of Art. 5 our constitution a special judge may he selected by agreement of the state and defendant. Such agreement need not be in writing. When such special judge has been agreed to by defendant, he will not thereafter be heard in attacking the qualifications of such special judge. Following Early v. State, 9 Tex. Grim. App. 484.
5. —Same—Bill of Exception — Incomplete—Presents, No Error.
While an accomplice to the offense was testifying for the state he was asked who made the whisky, to which he replied that he could not tell,,he could tell of whisky being made but whether it was this same whisky or not he 'could not tell. Nothing further appears in the bill. No error is perceived.
6. —Same—Statement of Counsel — In Presence of Jury — Not Improper.
Where counsel for the state in the presence of the jury announced that the case against Payton, he being a party implicated with appellant, who was present, would be dismissed. We are unable to see wherein such proceeding could have been harmful to appellant.
7. —Same—Argument of Counsel — Held Proper.
Where appellant had moved for a continuance on account of the absence of the witness Payton, who on his appearance on the trial was tendered, appellant as a witness, and the indictment against him dismissed so that he might be used as a witness by appellant, it was not error for state’s attorney in his argument to remark that Lonnie Payton was clamored for by appellant as a witness, and when turned over to him had not been used.
8. —Same—Bills of Exception — Incomplete—Not Considered.
Where bills of exception complain of questions asked a witness, without setting out the answers of such witnesses, they present nothing for review to this court.
9. —Same—Evidence—When Harmless — No Error.
Numerous objections were made by appellant to the. testimony of the witness Hoyt who was an accomplice. None of his answers to these questions were of a harmful character, and all were properly admitted, no error being discovered.
10. —Same—Argument of Counsel — Bill of Exception Incomplete — No Error Presented.
Where an objection is presented to argument of counsel, and the bill fails to give any explanation or surrounding of the argument, we are not able to say whether it was legitimate or pertinent to the testimony or not.
Appeal from the District Court of Houston County. Tried below before the Hon. Ben F. Dent, Judge. »
Appeal from a conviction for transporting intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Aldrich & Crook, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover G. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge. —
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Houston County of transporting intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.
We find in the record a motion on the part of the State's Attorney to dismiss the appeal because of the fact that the caption does not state the date of the adjournment of the trial court. An examination of the record reveals the fact that the motion is well taken. The caption states that the court began on the 24th day of March, 1924, but does not state when same adjourned. The matter is discussed in Lowrey v. State, 244 S. W. Rep. 147, which cites authorities supporting the proposition here advanced by the State.
The appeal is dismissed.
Dismissed.