Redd v. State
| Decision Date | 25 November 1903 |
| Citation | 77 S.W. 214 |
| Parties | REDD v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Smith County Court; S. A. Lindsay, Judge.
John Redd was convicted of violating the local option law, and appeals. Affirmed.
T. O. Woldert, for appellant. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $25, and 20 days' confinement in the county jail.
The first bill of exceptions complains that the court erred in calling this case out of its regular order. The bill is quite voluminous, but a careful inspection of the same does not show that the trial court abused his discretion. Unless the bill shows this abuse, this court is not authorized to reverse on that account. Goodwin v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 73 S. W. 804.
Bill No. 2 embodies a motion for postponement on the part of appellant for want of the testimony of a witness by the name of Etheridge. The application does not show any diligence, as required by law; nor was Etheridge summoned as a witness.
The sixth ground of the motion for new trial complains that the court erred in not permitting W. B. Beachum to testify that Wilson told him that he hid Shipp during the time he was hiding. There is no bill reserved, and hence this cannot be revised.
Appellant requested the following charge to be given to the jury, to wit: "The court charges you that the indictment charges that the sale was made to Wesley Shipp, and if you believe from the evidence that the money was paid by Erwin Etheridge, and the liquor was turned over to Doc Gurley by defendant, you will acquit defendant." Which charge the court gave with this qualification: "If you also find that Wesley Shipp did not pay any money to defendant for any part of the whisky." This charge, though not accurately worded, is correct, in view of the testimony. Prosecuting witness Shipp testified that he and other parties made up a purse to buy some whisky from appellant, and that he gave appellant 85 cents of the amount required. Under this testimony, the qualification to the charge was proper.
The evidence supports the verdict of the jury. The judgment is affirmed.
On Rehearing.
(Dec. 18, 1903.)
The judgment was affirmed at a previous day of this term, and is now before us on rehearing. Appellant insists that the court erred in holding the trial court properly overruled his motion for postponement on account of the absence of Etheridge, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mason v. State
...of another one of his counsel. In this there was no error. See Godwin v. State, 73 S. W. 804, 7 Tex. Ct. Rep. 330; Redd v. State, 77 S. W. 214, 8 Tex. Ct. Rep. 698. Appellant proposed to prove by J. H. Kemble, on his cross-examination, he being a witness for the state, if he was not in the ......