Court Opinion

ID: 9654720
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:48:39.58556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:12.841770
License: Public Domain

on appellant’s motion for rehearing.
BEAUCHAMP, Judge.
Appellant has filed an exhaustive brief with his motion for rehearing. His chief contention is that the state court had no jurisdiction to try appellant, because the accident occurred on a highway within the bounds of the Camp Hood area. This question was treated sufficiently in the original opinion. We remain of the opinion that the jurisdiction of the highways within Camp Hood was not ceded exclusively to the Federal Government.
Another question treated in the motion for rehearing is the admissibility in evidence of the partially filled bottle of whisky that was found in appellant’s car after his arrest. The opinion *105reached the correct conclusion as held by this court in many cases.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.