Trinkle v. State

• Decision Date: 02 November 1910
• Citation: 131 S.W. 583
• Parties: TRINKLE v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

131 S.W. 583

TRINKLE v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

November 2, 1910.

Appeal from Upshur County Court; W. R. Stephens, Special Judge.

Lee Trinkle was convicted of violating the local option law, and he appeals. Affirmed.

M. B. Briggs, Warren & Briggs, and J. P. Hart, for appellant. John A. Mobley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

McCORD, J.

Under an indictment returned in the district court of Upshur county, charging the appellant with making a sale of liquor in violation of the local option law, the indictment being transferred to the county court, upon trial, appellant was convicted, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $25 and 20 days' imprisonment in the county jail.

Motion was made in the court below to quash the indictment because C. A. Green was a member of the grand jury and the foreman thereof which returned this bill, and was at that time a duly qualified deputy sheriff of said Upshur county. This precise question was before us in the case of Roscoe Trinkle v. State (decided at the last term of the court) 127 S. W. 1060, in which we held adversely to appellant's contention on this proposition.

Frank Teefteller, the party to whom the indictment alleged the whisky to have been sold by appellant, testified that he lived in Gilmer, Upshur county; that he went to the town of Big Sandy in said county about January 15, 1909, and went into a house in said town and purchased from the appellant a pint of whisky for which he paid 75 cents; that the only one present with him was his brother, Joe Teefteller. Joe Teefteller took the stand and testified that he was present and saw his brother purchase a flask of whisky from the appellant, and that his brother paid 75 cents for it. These witnesses were placed under a very severe cross-examination, and we must admit that the appellant developed testimony that was not very credible to these witnesses. Also, the appellant placed a number of witnesses on the stand who testified that these state's witnesses were not worthy of credit. The defendant took the stand and testified that he did not sell the prosecuting witness any whisky on the date mentioned or at any other time. The jury were the exclusive judges of the facts proven as well as the credibility of the witnesses. They had the witnesses before them. There was an issue of fact raised by the testimony, and the jury found adversely to appellant's contention, and we would not be authorized to disturb the verdict of the jury, whatever may be our own view of the credibility of these witnesses as disclosed in the transcript.

Numerous grounds are made in the motion for new trial as to errors committed by the trial court in the main charge as given and to the refusal of several special charges. Bill of exceptions No. 1 complains that the court refused to permit the defendant to ask the state's witness Frank Teefteller if he was not accused of stealing some tools from a Mr. Lockhart. The bill of exceptions fails to disclose the object and purpose of this testimony, nor does it show what the answer of the witness would have been to this question. The bill is without merit.

Bill of exceptions No. 2 was to the refusal of the court to permit appellant to ask the same witness the following question: "Did you testify before the grand jury that you saw Mr. Fry buy whisky from the defendant at the same time you did?" It fails to disclose the object or purpose of this testimony, or what his answer would have been.

Bill of exceptions No. 4 is to the action of the court in refusing to allow the appellant to prove by the witness Jamison that he was express agent for the American Express Company at Gilmer, Tex., and that his express book showed that the witness Frank Teefteller had received through this office whisky several times. This bill is also...