Court Opinion

ID: 9676063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:13:44.772492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:43.301462
License: Public Domain

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of a charge of driving an automobile on a certain public road in Uvalde County while intoxicated, and was assessed a penalty of $50.00.
The evidence amply sustains the conviction and requires no discussion. Great stress is laid, in the appeal, on the use of the word “certain” in the complaint and information. In the construction of the sentence in which it is found, the word neither adds to nor detracts from the meaning which it would have if the word “certain” had not appeared. The objection need not be considered.
Nine bills of exception appear in the record.
Bill No. 1 raises a question as to the right of the officers to arrest appellant without a warrant. The officers testified that they saw him zig-zagging in the highway and became suspicious. When they approached him they smelled whisky. He was taken in charge and the jury found, under the evidence, that he was intoxicated. Their finding disposes of the issue.
The other eight bills complain of alleged misconduct of the jury in. considering the case. The state has raised an objection to the consideration of these bills because they are not fully in compliance with the law. We have considered the evidence introduced on the motion for a new trial and it is our conclusion that the testimony of the only jurors, three in number, who testified' in the case wholly fails to support the allegation's, in the motion.
*47We find no reversible error and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.