Montgomery v. State

196 S.W. 540, 81 Tex. Crim. 516, 1917 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 187
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 20, 1917
DocketNo. 4543.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 196 S.W. 540 (Montgomery 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
Montgomery v. State, 196 S.W. 540, 81 Tex. Crim. 516, 1917 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 187 (Tex. 1917).

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of selling patent medicines without first having obtained a license therefor and his punishment assessed at a fine of $150.

The record is before us with neither a statement of facts nor bill of exceptions. There is no motion for new trial in the record, and no notice of appeal was given, or if it was it is not shown in the transcript. There is a recognizance, however, but without notice of appeal this court could not entertain jurisdiction. But inasmuch as the record contains neither a statement of facts nor bill of exceptions it would make but little difference to final results whether the appeal be dismissed or the judgment affirmed. But as this court can not entertain' jurisdiction for want of notice of appeal, the appeal will, therefore, be dismissed. However, if there was a complete record the judgment would be affirmed, had notice of - appeal been given, because there is nothing in the transcript that would require investigation.

The appeal is dismissed.

Dismissed.

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

Related

Anzualda and Yglecias v. State
27 S.W.2d 231 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
196 S.W. 540, 81 Tex. Crim. 516, 1917 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montgomery-v-state-texcrimapp-1917.