Saufley v. State

90 S.W. 640, 48 Tex. Crim. 563, 1905 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 276
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided October 25, 1905·No. No. 3243.·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

BROOKS, Judge.

This conviction was for violating the local option law, the penalty imposed being a fine of $50 and thirty days confinement in the county jail. The original motion for new trial was filed and overruled on August 7, 1905; and the recognizance was entered into on the same day. Subsequently the amended motion for new trial was filed, on August 19, 1905—twelve days after the appeal was perfected, to this court; and consequently the amended motion cannot be considered. The original motion merely insists that the evidence is not sufficient. In our opinion the evidence amply supports the finding of the court. There are no bills of exception in the record. No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ON REHEARING.

December 20, 1905.

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

Saufley v. State, 90 S.W. 640, 48 Tex. Crim. 563, 1905 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 276 (Tex. 1905).

90 S.W. 640 (Saufley v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Frias v. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co.
266 S.W. 547 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1924)
Walker v. State
214 S.W. 331 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1919)
Mayhew v. State
155 S.W. 191 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1913)