
    John Daumery v. The State.
    No. 4743.
    Decided December 5, 1917.
    1.—Local Option—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
    Where, upon trial of a violation of the local option law, the evidence sustained the conviction, there was no reversible error.
    &—Same—Motion for New Trial—Bills of Exception—Appeal.
    In the absence of a bill of exception to the introduction of testimony, etc., the motion for new trial can not be considered; besides, the latter is not essential as a basis for appeal. Eollowing Sessions v. State, recently decided.
    Appeal from the District Court of Bowie. Tried below before the Hon. H. F. O’Heal.
    Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the local option law; penalty, one year confinement in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the ease.
    Ho brief on file for appellant.
    
      E. B. Hendricks, Assistant Attornej’ General, for the State.
   MORROW, Judge.

Appellant appeals from a judgment condemning him to one year confinement in the State penitentiary for the offense of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor in a prohibited district. See Vernon’s Ann. P. C., art. 597.

The statement of facts discloses that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. There are no bills of exceptions complaining of the charge of the court as to the receipt or rejection of evidence or other matter touching the conduct of the trial.

A motion for new trial appears in the record, in which complaint is made of the introduction of testimony charged to have been illegal, and some complaint is made for failure of the court to consider the motion because filed more than two days after the trial. The motion for new trial was not essential as a basis for appeal. Sessions v. State, 81 Texas Crim. Rep., 424, 197 S. W. Rep., 718. The matters referred to in the motion in this case are such as could be brought before this court by bill of exceptions. The indictment is regular. Ho errors have been pointed out.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Affirmed.  