Case Name: HOWELL v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-06-06
Citations: 255 S.W. 171
Docket Number: No. 7779
Parties: HOWELL v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 255
Pages: 171–172

Head Matter:
HOWELL v. STATE.
(No. 7779.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 6, 1923.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 31, 1923.)
1. Criminal law <&wkey; 1182-Conviction based on sufficient indictment affirmed in absence of bill of exceptions or apparent error.
Where bills of exception are filed too late to be considered, and the indictment sufficiently charges the offense, ‘ conviction will be affirmed in the absence of apparent reversible error.
On Motion for Behearing.' ,;
2. Criminal iaw <&wkey;603(l I) — Denial of motion for continuance held not abuse of discretion.
An averment in a motion for a continuance that an absent witness for whom a subpoena had been returned not executed three weeks before trial, had departed suddenly for another state, and that his stay was temporary, held
<&wkey;>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes not to show a sufficient excuse for failure to have issued additional process, or show an abuse of discretion by the court in denial of the motion.
3. Jury <&wkey;95—Jurors held1 not disqualified because they sat in previous cases wherein ac.cused was acquitted of similar offense.
Jurors, in a prosecution for the sale of intoxicating liquor, held not disqualified by reason of the fact that they also sat in two previous cases against accused for similar offense, wherein he was acquitted.
4. Criminal law <&wkey;I144(12) — Testimony brought out on re-examination assumed to have been proper because of cross-examination.
In the absence of any statement .of facts on appeal, or showing as to surrounding circumstances, testimony of a character witness oh re-examination that accused had been pointed out to him as a bootlegger, was not legitimate as original testimony, but it must be assumed to have been rendered competent by the cross-examination made by accused.
<§—¡For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
Appeal from District Court, Ellis County; W. L. Harding, Judge.
Ennis Howell was convicted of selling Intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Clyde P. Winn, of Waxahachie, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
EATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Ellis county of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.
The record is before us without statement of facts. The trial term of the court below adjourned December 2, 1922, an order having been entered granting appellant 60 days in which tó file bills of exception and statement of facts. The bills of exception were filed on March 3, 1923. There was no order extending the time. The bills of exception were filed too late to be considered; by us.
The indictment appearing to sufficiently charge the offense, and there béing no error apparent in the record, an affirmance will be ordered.