Sadler v. State, 14244.
| Decision Date | 10 June 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 14244.,14244. |
| Parties | SADLER v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Fannin County; Geo. P. Blackburn, Judge.
Claude Sadler was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Couch & Couch and S. F. Leslie, all of Bonham, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Conviction for transporting intoxicating liquor; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.
Two officers in a car together out on a road met appellant just past a turn in said road. They had started out with a view of either intercepting or ascertaining if appellant was transporting or possessing intoxicating liquor. When they met him, they turned their car across the road, whereupon appellant stopped his car, and, according to the testimony of the officers, proceeded to break a container of liquor, and then go to the rear of his car and break two or three others. One of the officers testified that appellant threw part of the whisky at them, and that it splashed on them, and that it was in the bottom of the car. The evidence amply supports the verdict and judgment.
There are six bills of exception. The first brings forward all of the various grounds alleged in the motion for new trial, and asserts that the court erred in refusing to grant such new trial. A bill of exception of this kind is of no practical value. It would be manifestly proper for the appellant to make complaint of the matters severally, and at the time they occur in the course of the trial, and to bring up his several bills of exception presenting such complaint.
Bill of exception No. 2 complains of the refusal of the court below to compel the officer who arrested appellant to disclose from whom he got the information on which he was seeking appellant, and which led him to make the trip. We know of no reason why the court should attempt to compel the officers to disclose such information.
Bill of exception No. 3 complains of the reception of testimony of the officers who were present when, as they stated, appellant broke several containers of whisky, part of which splashed on them—to the effect that, after they carried appellant to jail, they wrung out their handkerchiefs and the liquid thus obtained was whisky. The fact that appellant was under arrest would not suffice to prevent the introduction of this testimony.
There is nothing in bill of exception No. 4 calling for discussion. Bill No. 5 sets up that the officer testified that, when he turned his car in front of appellant, he expected to apprehend him, and that he did stop him right there. Asked by appellant on cross-examination if he did not so do, this was answered in the affirmative. Appellant then moved to exclude all the testimony of the officer as to the acts of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bridges v. State, 29869
...of the person from whom he receives information upon which he bases his right to arrest or search upon probable cause. Sadler v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 318, 40 S.W.2d 91, and Hudson v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 612, 243 S.W.2d 841, 245 S.W.2d We find no merit in appellant's contention that the Cou......
-
Hudson v. State, 25425
...of the person from whom he got the information upon which he based his right to search the truck on probable cause. In Sadler v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 318, 40 S.W.2d 91, this Court said 'Bill of exception No. 2 complains of the refusal of the court below to compel the officer who arrested ap......