DocketNumber: No. 7263.
Citation Numbers: 250 S.W. 1027, 94 Tex. Crim. 295
Judges: LATTIMORE, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 5/2/1923
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 4/15/2017
Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Hunt County of the offense of transporting intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.
From the statement of facts in this case it appears that appellant was arrested on a public road in Hunt County and that he had in his car at the time about one hundred and twenty half gallon fruit jars of whisky. On behalf of the appellant a number of witnesses were introduced who testified to his being under twenty-five years of age, and that he had never been convicted of a felony, and that he had a good reputation for being a peaceable, law-abiding citizen. This testimony was offered for its bearing upon appellant's application for a suspended sentence.
Appellant's first complaint is that the trial court refused to instruct the jury that the intoxicating liquor must be transported for purposes of sale. This contention has been decided against appellant. Stringer v. State,
Complaint based on the proposition that the sheriff had no search warrant at the time he found the liquor in appellant's car and that his testimony should have been rejected, was decided adversely to appellant in the case of Welchek v. State,
Appellant having introduced witnesses to testify that his reputation was good as a peaceable, law-abiding citizen, sought further to ask of a witness if the reputation of appellant for honesty and fair dealing was good. This was not an issue in the case and the trial court properly sustained the State's objection thereto.
Appellant's bill of exceptions No. 10 complains of the court's action in rejecting evidence as to whether the officers had a search warrant and whether they searched the car or not, presents no error in view of the opinion in the Welchek case, supra.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.