Case Name: RED WARD v. STATE
Court: Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1917-01-24
Citations: 13 Okla. Crim. 110
Docket Number: No. A-2689
Parties: RED WARD v. STATE.
Judges: ARMSTRONG and BRETT, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Criminal Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 110–111

Head Matter:
RED WARD v. STATE.
No. A-2689.
Opinion Filed January 24, 1917.
(162 Pac. 238.)
APPEAL AND ERROR — Briefs. Where ithe defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction, and no briefs are filed, nor arguments . presented, 'this court will .make an 'examination of the record proper, for jurisdictional errors, and if no fundamental error is apparent, will affirm the judgment.
Appeal from County Court, Garvin County; ' W. R. ¡Wallace. Judge.
Red Ward was. convicted of violating the .prohibitory-law, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
H. M. Carr, for plaintiff in error.
R. McMillan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DOYLE, P. J.
Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Garvin county upon an indictment presented by the grand jury in the district court, which was duly transferred to the county court, wherein the defendant Red Ward, was charged with having unlawfully sold to one George Hays intoxicating liquor, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the county jail for 60 days and a fine of $100. From the judgment entered upon the verdict he appealed by filing in this court on March 28, 1916, a petition in error, with case-made.
No briefs have been filed and no oral argument made in support of the errors assigned. In cases of this kind we do not consider it the duty of this court to go into a careful examination of the evidence to determine whether or not the trial court erred in its rulings on the admission or rejection of testimony.
We have examined the record and find there is testimony tending to support the allegations of the indictment, and further find that no objection was made nor exception taken to the instructions as given by the court, and upon the whole record we have discovered no error which will warrant a reversal of the judgment.
The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed. Mandate forthwith.
ARMSTRONG and BRETT, JJ., concur.