
    SNELL v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 23, 1912.)
    1. Criminal Law (§§ 1092, 1099) — Appeal-Statement of Pacts — Time for Piling.
    A statement of facts and bill of exceptions filed two or three weeks after adjournment of court cannot be considered by the- Court of Criminal Appeals.
    [Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see ’Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2803, 2829, 2834-2861, 2919, 2866-2880; Dec. Dig. §§ 1092, 1099.]
    2. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 111) — Prohibition Law — Repeal.
    The prohibition law was not repealed by the vagrancy act subsequently enacted.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. § 121; Dec. Dig. § 111.]
    3. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 205) — Local Option — Sufficiency of Complaint.
    The complaint and information in a prosecution for unlawfully selling intoxicants in a prohibition precinct were not fatally defective for not alleging the date of the prohibition election, or when the law was put in force.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. § 225; Dec. Dig. § 205.]
    Appeal from McLennan County Court; Tom L. McCullough, Judge.
    Walter Snell was convicted of unlawfully selling intoxicants in a prohibition district, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PRBNDERGAST, J.

Appellant was prosecuted and convicted for unlawfully making a sale of intoxicating liquor in a prohibition precinct in McLennan county, a misdemean- or, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $100 and 60 days in the county jail.

By complaint and information the offense is charged to have been committed on May 15, 1910, without alleging whether the prohibition election which put the law in force in that precinct occurred before or after the felony statute went into effect.

This case was tried on June 8, 1910. The record was not filed in this court until April 10, 1912. The court Convened on May 2, 1910, and adjourned on June 18, 1910. No order was made permitting the statement of facts and bills of exceptions to be filed after adjournment of the term. There appears in the record bills of exceptions and a statement of facts filed from two to three weeks after the adjournment. The assistant Attorney General objects to their being considered by this court, and under the uniform holding of this court they cannot be considered. Hamilton v. State, 145 S. W. 349, and cases there cited.

Without a statement of facts, the court cannot consider any of the questions attempted to be raised, except in his motions to arrest of judgment. By these motions it is insisted that the prohibition law under which this prosecution was had was repealed by the vagrancy act. This has been correctly held against appellant. Parshall v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. R. 177, 138 S. W. 759.

The other ground is that the complaint and information are fatally defective, in that they do not allege the date the prohibition election was held and the law put in force. This has also been correctly expressly held against appellant. Hamilton v. State, supra.

The judgment is affirmed.  