
    HOWARD v. STATE.
    (No. 3458.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 3, 1915.
    Rehearing Denied March 24, 1915.)
    1. Deunkaeds @=>11 — Deunkenness in Public Place — Inxobmation.
    A complaint and information charging drunkenness in a public place sufficiently identified the public place by describing it as a restaurant to which people commonly resorted for the purpose of eating and purchasing refreshments.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Drunkards, Cent. Dig. §§ 12-18; Dec. Dig. @=>11.]
    2. Deunkaeds ⅞=>11— Sufficiency ox Accusation-Place ox Oxxense.
    In a prosecution for drunkenness in a public place, it was sufficient, in a complaint and information, to allege that the offense occurred in the county in which the prosecution was brought, without alleging the particular place in the county.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Drunkards, Cent. Dig. §§ 12-18; Dec. Dig. @=>11.]
    3. Ceiminal Law @=>1066 — Appeal—Resee-
    VATION OX GeOUND-S OX REVIEW — EXCEPTIONS.
    Where accused took no bill of exceptions to any of the proceedings during the trial, bills of exception to the overruling of each ground of his motion for a new trial raised nothing for review.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2686; Dec. Dig. @=>1066.]
    4. Ceiminal Law @=>925 — New Tbial — Geounds — Misconduct ox Juey.
    The bare mention of the fact that accused did not testify by one of the jurors was not ground for setting aside the verdict, where all of the jurors swore that they were in no way influenced thereby.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2238-2247, 2250; Dec. Dig. @=>925.]
    Appeal from Newton County Court; W. E. Gray, Judge.
    W. C. Howard was convicted of drunkenness in a public place, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Forse & Hamilton, of Newton, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PRENDERGAST, P. J.

By complaint and information appellant was prosecuted for drunkenness in a public place. They aver that on or about November 7,1914, he did then and there, by the voluntary and immoderate use of spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors unlawfully get drunk, and was then and there found in a state of intoxication in a certain public place, to wit, in a restaurant to which people commonly resort for the purpose of eating and purchasing refreshments. The court did not err in overruling his motion to quash them. It was not necessary to further identify the public place than was done. Nor was it necessary that they should allege the particular place in the county. The allegation that it was in Newton county was all that is réquired.

Appellant complains that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction.- We think it was sufficient.

Appellant took no bill of exceptions to any of the proceedings during the trial. After the conviction he filed a motion for new trial setting up several grounds therefor, and he took a several bill of exceptions to the court’s overruling each ground of his motion for new trial. This raises no such question in a way that it can be reviewed.

In the last ground of his motion he claimed that while the jury was considering their verdict they alluded to his failure to testify. The court, it seems, heard the evidence, and each of the six jurors, only, testified to the same thing, as follows:

“After we received the charge from the court and retired to consider of our verdict, but before we began to consider our verdict, and when we first went out, one of the jurors made menttion of the fact that the defendant failed to testify. This did not influence me in the least in arriving at a verdict.”

This court has many times held that such bare mention or allusion, when the jurors swear it in no way influences them, presents no ground to set aside the verdict. Coffman v. State, 165 S. W. 947, and cases there cited.

The judgment will be affirmed.  