
    PEARSON v. STATE.
    (No. 7590.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 23, 1923.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 17, 1923.)
    Criminal law &wkey;l 115(2) — In absence of showing, overruling of motion to quash jury list presumed correct.
    A motion to quash a jury list presenting a question of fact, the overruling thereof will be presumed correct, in absence of something authenticated by the trial judge from which the contrary can be deduced.
    Appeal from District Court, Montague County; C. R. Pearman, Judge.
    . Matt Pearson was convicted of violating the liquor laws, and appeals.'
    Affirmed.
    Chancellor & Bryan, of Bowie, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

By an indictment adequately framed and regularly presented appellant was charged with the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

Appellant filed a motion to quash the ve-nire, charging that on the 15th day of July a special term of court was ordered by tbe district judge to be convened on tbe 7th day of August following, and tbe court intentionally refrained from having tbe jury commission draw veniremen for tbe special term. Tbe motion avers that tbis omission was purposely done, and not through inadvertence on the part of tbe state. No bill of exceptions is found complaining of tbe action of the court in overruling tbis motion. In fact, tbe minutes of the court do not reveal any action upon tbe motion to quash tbe venire. There is brought here, however,' a certified copy of the trial judge’s docket, showing the entries thereon, one of them being “defendant’s motion to quash the jury iist overruled,” to which defendant excepts. The motion presents a question of fact, but, in the absence of something authenticated by the trial judge bringing to the knowledge of this court facts which he found to be true or upon which he ruled, the presumption in favor of the correctness of his ruling apparently would prevail.

The legal question which the' appellant seeks to have reviewed has this day been decided adversely to his contention in the ease of Bennett v. State (No. 7493) 254 S. W. 949.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      &wkey;sFor other eases see same topic and KEt-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     