Case Name: FRENCH v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-12-17
Citations: 269 S.W. 786
Docket Number: No. 7852
Parties: FRENCH v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 269
Pages: 786–788

Head Matter:
FRENCH v. STATE.
(No. 7852.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 17, 1924.
Rehearing Denied March 18, 1925.)
1. Criminal law <@=>1092(12) — Proving up only by two bystanders held insufficient.
Proving up of bills of exception only by two bystanders held insufficient.
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Indictment and information <@=>125(31) — Count charging keeping premises for purpose of manufacturing and storing held.not duplicitous.
Count of indictment charging keeping premises or permitting premises to be kept for purpose of manufacturing and storing intoxicating liquors held not duplicitous, gist of offense being keeping of premises for unlawful purpose.
3. Criminal law <@=>1091 (15), 1119(4) — Refusal to charge to disregard improper argument not considered, in absence of showing argument in fact made.
Bill of exceptions to refusal to charge jury to disregard state’s improper argument will not be considered, if bill contains no showing of fact that argument was in fact made, other than statement that it was objected to, and bill cannot be verified by reference to allegations of other bills.
4. Intoxicating liquors <@=>139 — Keeping .premises for storing liquor need not, in order to be penal, be for purposes of sale.
Statute defining offense of keeping, and permitting to be kept, premises for purpose of storing intoxicating liquor, does not require that storing, in order to be penal, be for purposes of sale. .
5. Jury <@=>33(l) — Law requiring use of jury wheels in certain counties held not to restrict selection or disfranchise qualified jurors.
Rev. St. arts. 5152, 5153, relative to use of jury wheels in certain counties, held not to restrict selection or disfranchise qualified jurors.
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Travis County; James R. Hamilton, Judge.
Ed Erencli was convicted of keeping and permitting to be kept premises for the purpose of manufacturing and storing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
James E. Hair, of San Antonio, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover O. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the criminal district court of Travis county of keeping and permitting to be kept premises for the purpose of manufacturing and storing intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.
There is no brief on file for appellant, notwithstanding which we have gone carefully through all the numerous bills of exception and complaints which we find in the record.
Appellant asked for a postponement of the trial until motions for new trials in cases against his brother could be heard and granted. The refusal was no error. It is not shown that upon a hearing the motions were granted, and it is reasonable to conclude they were not. The exceptions to the court's charge do not show to have been presented at the proper time and are further believed by us to be without merit. Special charges Nos. 10 and 11 were given. We have examined the other charges asked and find them either covered by the main charge or not supported by testimony, and we do not believe error appears in the refusal of any of them.
We have examined and considered each of the numerous bills of exception and are of opinion that a discussion of none of them would be an aid to the profession nor clarify any point of practice. None of them manifest error. Several bills are attempted to be proven by bystanders. Each of said bills is proved up only by two bystanders, which is not sufficient. Osborne v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 56 S. W. 54. Said bills are further defective in not sufficiently showing that the trial court refused to approve them. Landrum v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 666, 40 S. W. 737; Johnson v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 298, 59 S. W. 900.
The court heard evidence on the presentation of the motion for new trial sought because of misconduct of the jury, and his action in refusing said motion presents no abuse of the discretion confided to him in such matters. We do not think the evidence need be set out. It amply showed both the manufacture and storage of intoxicating liquor on premises controlled by appellant and his brother.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
<@=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes