Frier v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Frier v. State

1 S.W.2d 307, 108 Tex. Crim. 378, 1927 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 732

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 16, 1927

DocketNo. 11164.

StatusPublished

This text of 1 S.W.2d 307 (Frier v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frier v. State, 1 S.W.2d 307, 108 Tex. Crim. 378, 1927 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 732 (Tex. 1927).

Pincite

Opinions

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for possessing a still and equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, punishment one year in the penitentiary.

The facts seem to sufficiently support the jury’s conclusion of guilt. Just across a turn-row and adjacent to the farm which appellant was cultivating officers discovered a still, mash, and signs of use, and the road leading from appellant’s home down to the immediate vicinity of the still gave evidence of travel. They watched the still and saw appellant and his son come to same and begin to remove the tops from the barrels and discuss how much they should make, etc. The facts support the verdict and judgment.

Appellant’s motion for new trial was overruled March 31, 1927, and he was given sixty days in which to file bills of exception. Said sixty days expired May 30, 1927. On May 31 the *379 trial judge entered an order granting further extension of time in which to file such bills of exception. The time originally granted having expired before the extension order was made, the trial court was without authority to make same. Míreles v. State, 98 Tex. Crim. Rep. 396. It is to be regretted that we can not consider the bills of exception.

No error appearing in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for possessing a still and equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, punishment one year in the penitentiary.

The facts seem to sufficiently support the jury’s conclusion of guilt. Just across a turn-row and adjacent to the farm which appellant was cultivating officers discovered a still, mash, and signs of use, and the road leading from appellant’s home down to the immediate vicinity of the still gave evidence of travel. They watched the still and saw appellant and his son come to same and begin to remove the tops from the barrels and discuss how much they should make, etc. The facts support the verdict and judgment.

Appellant’s motion for new trial was overruled March 31, 1927, and he was given sixty days in which to file bills of exception. Said sixty days expired May 30, 1927. On May 31 the *379 trial judge entered an order granting further extension of time in which to file such bills of exception. The time originally granted having expired before the extension order was made, the trial court was without authority to make same. Míreles v. State, 98 Tex. Crim. Rep. 396. It is to be regretted that we can not consider the bills of exception.

No error appearing in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 S.W.2d 307, 108 Tex. Crim. 378, 1927 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frier-v-state-texcrimapp-1927.