Opinion
No. 19554.
Delivered March 16, 1938. Rehearing denied April 20, 1938.
1. — Bills of Exception — Certificate.
Bills of exception not certified to by the clerk can not be considered by appellate court.
2. — Bills of Exception — Transcript.
The proper place for bills of exception is in the transcript, rather than in the statement of facts.
3. — Intoxicating Liquor (Possession for Sale in Dry Area) — Evidence.
Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction for possessing whisky in a dry area for the purpose of sale.
Appeal from the County Court of Cherokee County. Hon. J. W. Chandler, Jr., Judge.
Appeal from conviction for possessing whisky in dry area for purpose of sale; penalty, fine of $100 and confinement in the county jail for a period of thirty days.
Affirmed.
The opinion states the case.
J. Y. Gray and Alex P. Pope, both of Tyler, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Attorney, of Austin, for the State.
The offense is possession of whisky in dry area for the purpose of sale; the punishment, a fine of $100.00 and confinement in the county jail for a period of thirty days.
Appellant's only contention is as to the sufficiency of the complaint and information to charge the offense. In the case of Thompson v. State, No. 19553, this day decided but not yet reported [page 405 of this volume], a similar complaint and information was upheld, and for the reasons there assigned, we overrule appellant's contention.
We note that appellant has attached to the statement of facts what appear to be bills of exception. These can not be considered by us as they are not certified to by the clerk. Their proper place is in the transcript rather than in the statement of facts.
The evidence is sufficient to sustain appellant's conviction.
No error appearing in the record, the judgment is 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.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
The identical questions presented in the motion for rehearing herein were considered in the opinion on motion for rehearing in the case of Melvin Thompson v. State, No. 19553, opinion this day delivered [page 405 of this volume], and decided adversely to appellant's contentions. We deem it unnecessary to reiterate the reasons there given in support of our conclusion.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.