Case Name: TABB v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1950-04-19
Citations: 229 S.W.2d 628
Docket Number: No. 24719
Parties: TABB v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 229
Pages: 628–630

Head Matter:
TABB v. STATE.
No. 24719.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 19, 1950.
Rehearing Denied May 17, 1950.
Thomas L. Blanton, Albany, for appellant.
Joe E. Gracey, County Attorney, Breck-inridge, George R. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
BEAUCHAMP, Judge.
' Appellant was assessed a fine of Fifty Dollars for driving a motor vehicle on a public highway while intoxicated.
, This record comes to the court with two hundred and sixty-four pages in the tran.script. In addition thereto, a number of instruments have been tendered for original filing in this court. All pleading is made in -the trial court and none may be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals. The statement •of facts consists of one hundred and ten -pages and appellant's brief contains ninety-two -printed pages. There are fifty-one bills of exception in the record, which we have examined very carefully and it is our conclusion that neither bill presents a question of law requiring any discussion by this court, under the charge for which appellant was convicted.
The pertinent facts of the case produced by the State show that appellant was intoxicated, driving on a highway about three and a half miles east of Breckenrid-ge where he was arrested and taken to the county jail and incarcerated for the night! Two officers made the arrest. One took appellant in the officers' car while the other drove appellant's car into town. The officer in charge of appellant's car after the arrest saw a bottle in it containing some whiskey. He took charge of this and brought it to court to be used as a circumstance corroborating the State's evidence that he was intoxicated.
Appellant's testimony pertinent to,the is» sues in the case consists of a denial that'he was intoxicated. All other issues raised and attempted to be raised have no place whatsoever in the record. We see no purpose for them in the record .and certainly no reason why we should discuss them. The effort in the trial of the case to show the general practices of the officers in the county in making arrests on highways for offenses of. this nature; their success or failure in securing prosecutions in other cases; the instructions which they received from the Department of Public Safety; and the general system of that Department in law' enforcement, comprises chiefly the matter which appellant sought vainly to inject into this case and furnishes the basis for the many bills of exception.
Appellant's complaint of the treatment received by him from the clerk of the trial court does not present a matter of which this court has jurisdiction. While it appears that the clerk wrongfully required 'him to pay for his transcript, that is a matter of private interest which has, nothing to do with the issues this court can pass upon.
The evidence is conflicting as to whether or not appellant was intoxicated, and that was the only pertinent issue in the case. The evidence presented by the State was admissible and we 'find nothing excluded 'by the court which appellant was entitled.to have. It was the province, of the jury to pass upon fact issues.
We find no reversible error and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.