Case Name: MAYABB v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-06-13
Citations: 255 S.W. 189
Docket Number: No. 7799
Parties: MAYABB v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 255
Pages: 189–190

Head Matter:
MAYABB v. STATE.
(No. 7799.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 13, 1923.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 7, 1923.)
1. Intoxicating liquors 16 — Specification in indictment of kind of liquor sold held sufficient.
An indictment charging the sale of “spirituous, vinous, and intoxicating liquor, and malt liquor, and medicated bitters capable of producing intoxication,” held not vague and indefinite, in that it failed to particularize the kind of liquor sold.
2. Criminal law &wkey;»l 111 (3) — Appellate court bound by trial court’s qualifications of bill of exceptions.
Where a bill of exceptions is qualified by the trial court, the appellate court is bound by the qualification.
3. Criminal law <&wkey;>I09l(IO) — Bills of exceptions should specify objections urged.
Under Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 744, a bill of exceptions complaining of particular evidence does not ordinarily present a question for review, if it fails to set forth the objections urged to the evidence.
©sjFor other cases see same topic and KE Y-N UMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; C A. Pippen, Judge.
J. D. Mayabb, alias Dad, was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Baskett & De Lee, of Dallas, for appellant. R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Conviction is for selling intoxicating liquor; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.
The indictment alleges that appellant sold "spirituous, vinous, and intoxicating liquor, and malt liquor, and medicated bit-' ters capable of producing intoxication." The indictment is attacked as being vague and indefinite, in that it fails to particularize the kind of liquor sold. Similar indictments have been upheld. Travinio v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 140, 242 S. W. 242; Trevinio v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 439, 247 S. W. 872; Tucker v. State (No. 7575) 251 S. W. 1090, opinion June 6, 1923.
Two witnesses testified that they tasted the liquor sold by appellant, and that it was whisky. Appellant objected to this testimony. The bills of exception state that the objection was urged because it called for a conclusion and an opinion, and the witnesses had not shown themselves qualified to give an opinion. The court, however, qualifies the bills by stating that appellant merely objected without stating any reason whatever. We are bound by the qualification. A bill of exception does not ordinarily present a question, for review if it fails to set forth the objections urged by accused. For collation of authorities, see Branch's Ann. P. C. § 208; Vernon's Ann. Code Cr. Proc. art. 744, note 29, page 543. For further observations upon the question, we refer to our opinion in Cathey v. State (No. 7794) 252 S. W. 534, this day decided, and to the authorities therein cited.
The evidence being sufficient to support the. verdict and judgment, and finding no error calling for a reversal, the judgment is affirmed.