Welk v. State
Citation | 260 S.W. 1118 |
Decision Date | 16 January 1924 |
Docket Number | (No. 8097.) |
Parties | Sidney WELK v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; C. A. Pippen, Judge.
W. W. Nelms, of Dallas, for appellant. Shelby S. Cox, Crim. Dist. Atty., of Dallas, and Tom Garrard, State's Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State's Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
Conviction is for the unlawful manufacture of whisky. Punishment, two years in the penitentiary. This is a companion case to Belcher v. State (No. 8092) 258 S. W. 815, this day decided. The facts and the questions of law are identical. The purported bill of exception relative to examination of jurors bears the same notation by the learned trial judge as the bill to the same proceeding in the Belcher Case. For the same reasons given in the opinion in that case, the judgment here must be affirmed; and it is so ordered.
On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant's motion for rehearing is overruled for the same reasons given for overruling a similar motion in Belcher v. State, No. 8092, opinion on rehearing March 5th, 1924 (Tex. Cr. App.) 258 S. W. 815.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McCain v. State, 20906.
...498, 252 S.W. 521; Davis v. State, 96 Tex.Cr.R. 447, 258 S.W. 188; Belcher v. State, 96 Tex.Cr.R. 561, 258 S.W. 815; Welk v. State, 96 Tex.Cr.R. 653, 260 S.W. 1118. The bill should show the ruling complained of, the objection made, and that error was committed. See Wear v. State (Tex.Cr.App......
-
Fisher v. State
...252 S. W. 521; Davis v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 447, 258 S. W. 188; Belcher v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 561, 258 S. W. 815; Welk v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 653, 260 S. W. 1118. The bill should show the ruling complained of, the objection made, and that error was committed. See Wear v. State (Tex. ......
- Zack v. State