Case Name: Grady Harlan v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1930-06-04
Citations: 116 Tex. Crim. 208
Docket Number: No. 13496
Parties: Grady Harlan v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 116
Pages: 208–212

Head Matter:
Grady Harlan v. The State.
No. 13496.
Delivered June 4, 1930.
Reinstated June 26, 1930.
Affirmed October 8, 1930.
Rehearing denied November 12, 1930.
Reported in 32 S. W. (2d) 182.
The opinion states the case.
G. 0. Crisp of Kaufman, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State’s Attorney, of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
Conviction is for possessing a still for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, punishment being three years in the penitentiary.
As it appears in the record the appeal bond is approved by the sheriff only. Art. 818, C. C. P. (1925) requires that it be approved by both the sheriff and the trial judge. For authorities see Note 1, under said article in Vernon's Ann. Tex. C. C. P., Vol. 3.
The bills of exception seem defective in not setting out the search warrant and affidavit therefor, but we do not discuss them as the case is not properly before us.
If appellant desires to do so he will have fifteen days from this date to file proper bond and present a record thereof to this court in connection with motion to reinstate the appeal.
The appeal is dismissed.
Dismissed.
ON MOTION TO REINSTATE.
CHRISTIAN, Judge.
The appeal was dismissed at a former day of the term because of an insufficient appeal bond. A sufficient bond, properly approved, having been timely filed, the appeal is reinstated and the case will stand for later consideration on its merits.
Reinstated.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
CHRISTIAN, Judge.
The appeal was dismissed at a former term, but later reinstated. The case is now considered on its merits.
Operating under a search warrant, officers discovered a still and a quantity of whisky in a house occupied by appellant.
Appellant objected to the testimony of the officers touching the result of the search on the ground that the place searched was appellant's private residence and that the affidavit for the search warrant was made by only one person. The affidavit is not set out in the bill of exception in substance or in detail. It is merely stated, as a ground of objection, that the place searched was appellant's private residence and that only one person made the affidavit upon which the search warrant was based. A mere statement of a ground of objection in a bill of exception is not a certificate of the judge that the facts which form the basis of the objection are true; it merely shows that such an objection was made. Branch's Annotated Penal Code, Section 209; Fisher v. State, 1 S. W. (2d) 301; Buchanan v. State, 298 S. W. 569; Coleman v. State, 10 S. W. (2d) 559. It is the rule that this court must indulge the legal presumption that the ruling of the trial court was correct, unless the bill of exception shows otherwise. Branch's Annotated Penal Code, Section 207; Buchanan v. State, supra. Being unable to determine from the bill of exception whether the trial court committed error in admitting the testimony, we must presume that the ruling was correct.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.