Ramsey v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Ramsey v. State

250 S.W. 674, 94 Tex. Crim. 429, 1923 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 182

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 9, 1923

DocketNo. 7444.

StatusPublished

This text of 250 S.W. 674 (Ramsey 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

Ramsey v. State, 250 S.W. 674, 94 Tex. Crim. 429, 1923 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 182 (Tex. 1923).

Pincite

Opinions

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Titus County of transporting intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.

The indictment in this case was returned on January 6, 1922, and the case was called for trial in June of said year. Appellant then presented an application for continuance based on the absence of two witnesses, one of whom was alleged to live in Arkansas and the other in Louisiana. It is stated that both of said witnesses had assured appellant that they would voluntarily come and testify in his behalf. Such representation affords no justification of reliance thereon and presents no excuse for not taking the deposition of said witnesses in accordance with our statute. The testimony is ample to show that appellant was driving a car in which there was a large quantity of liquor on the occasion in question. A car accident revealed the presence of said liquor. Appellant' fled. The evidence supports the verdict.

Finding no error in the record, an affirmance is ordered.

Affirmed.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Titus County of transporting intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.

The indictment in this case was returned on January 6, 1922, and the case was called for trial in June of said year. Appellant then presented an application for continuance based on the absence of two witnesses, one of whom was alleged to live in Arkansas and the other in Louisiana. It is stated that both of said witnesses had assured appellant that they would voluntarily come and testify in his behalf. Such representation affords no justification of reliance thereon and presents no excuse for not taking the deposition of said witnesses in accordance with our statute. The testimony is ample to show that appellant was driving a car in which there was a large quantity of liquor on the occasion in question. A car accident revealed the presence of said liquor. Appellant' fled. The evidence supports the verdict.

Finding no error in the record, an affirmance is ordered.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 S.W. 674, 94 Tex. Crim. 429, 1923 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramsey-v-state-texcrimapp-1923.