Britton v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Britton v. State

60 S.W.2d 1113, 1933 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 735

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Britton v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 130 Tex. Crim. 241 →

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided May 10, 1933·No. No. 16031·Published

Opinion

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Theft of an automobile is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The evidence heard in the trial court is not brought forward for review. There are no bills of exception complaining of the rulings of the court. The indictment is regular and regularly presented.

In the motion for new trial there is an averment that certain arguments were made. This is not verified by any bills of exception; nor does it appear that the court’s attention was drawn to the arguments at the time they are charged to have been made.

We find nothing in the record which would warrant this court in disturbing the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Theft of an automobile is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The evidence heard in the trial court is not brought forward for review. There are no bills of exception complaining of the rulings of the court. The indictment is regular and regularly presented.

In the motion for new trial there is an averment that certain arguments were made. This is not verified by any bills of exception; nor does it appear that the court’s attention was drawn to the arguments at the time they are charged to have been made.

We find nothing in the record which would warrant this court in disturbing the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.

Britton v. State, 60 S.W.2d 1113, 1933 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 735 (Tex. 1933).

Pincite

60 S.W.2d 1113 (Britton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.