Howard v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Howard v. State

206 S.W. 525, 84 Tex. Crim. 253, 1918 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 367

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 20, 1918

DocketNo. 5198.

StatusPublished

This text of 206 S.W. 525 (Howard 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

Howard v. State, 206 S.W. 525, 84 Tex. Crim. 253, 1918 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 367 (Tex. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

MORROW, Judge.

The conviction is for unlawfully pursuing tho business of selling intoxicating liquors in prohibited territory.

The record is not accompanied by a statement of facts. The term at which the trial took place ended on the 25th day of May, 1918. The only bill of exceptions appearing in the record was filed September 6, 1918. The record shows that an order extending the time for filing bills of exception was entered June 24, 1918, but this order granted only thirty days additional time, which expired some time before the bill of exceptions was filed. The bill, however, in the absence of a statement of facts, would be insufficient to disclose error.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

MORROW, Judge.

The conviction is for unlawfully pursuing tho business of selling intoxicating liquors in prohibited territory.

The record is not accompanied by a statement of facts. The term at which the trial took place ended on the 25th day of May, 1918. The only bill of exceptions appearing in the record was filed September 6, 1918. The record shows that an order extending the time for filing bills of exception was entered June 24, 1918, but this order granted only thirty days additional time, which expired some time before the bill of exceptions was filed. The bill, however, in the absence of a statement of facts, would be insufficient to disclose error.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 S.W. 525, 84 Tex. Crim. 253, 1918 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-state-texcrimapp-1918.