Case Name: W. C. Crabble v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1916-05-24
Citations: 79 Tex. Crim. 558
Docket Number: No. 4085
Parties: W. C. Crabble v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 79
Pages: 558–559

Head Matter:
W. C. Crabble v. The State.
No. 4085.
Decided May 24, 1916.
1. —Passing Forged Check — Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of passing a forged check, the evidence sustained a conviction, there was no reversible error.
2. —Same—Motion for New Trial — Affidavit.
Where the motion for new trial was not sworn to and no affidavit attached thereto to substantiate the allegation therein, and the record showed that the court below heard evidence on the motion,, which evidence is not shown in the record, there was no reversible error.
Appeal from the District Court of Wichita. Tried below before the Hon. E. W. Nicholson.
Appeal from a conviction of passing a forged check; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
W. E. Huffhines, for appellant.
C. C. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, Presiding Judge.
Appellant was convicted of passing a forged check and assessed the lowest punishment.
No question is attempted to be raised, except by appellant's motion for a new trial. One ground of this is that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict.- We have carefully read the statement of facts and are of the opinion that the evidence is amply sufficient to- sustain the verdict. It is unnecessary to recite the testimony.
The other ground is, he alleges that the jury received other testimony after they retired. This motion is in no way sworn to by anyone, and the affidavit of no person to substantiate the allegation is filed herewith. Therefore, the question is not raised in such a way that this court could review it, as has many times been held. There is nothing in the record to show, other than the hare unsworn allegation, that it is true. The judgment of the court overruling the motion recites that evidence was heard thereon. What that evidence was, if there was any, is in no way shown in this record. On that account, too, no error is shown.
The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.
Affirmed.
HABPEB, Judge, not present at consultation.