
    SNELSON v. STATE.
    (No. 10713.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 26, 1927.
    Rehearing Denied March 23, 1927.)
    1. Criminal law <@=>622(I) — Severance to permit tria! of other defendant first held properly denied, where other defendant could not be found.
    Refusal of severance in order that other defendant might be first tried held not abuse of discretion, where severance would have operated as continuance on account of inability to find other defendant.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;1133 — Indictment could not be considered for first time on rehearing, where not attacked by motion to quash or in arrest of judgment.
    Validity of indictment as charging offense, could not be considered for first time" on motion for rehearing, where no attack was made' thereon by motion to quash or in arrest of judgment.
    Appeal from District Court, Knox County; J. H. Milam, Judge.
    B. B. Snelson, alias Doc Snelson, was convicted of having delivered and furnished intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.-
    Affirmed.
    J. S. Kendall, Of Munday, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction in district court of Knox county for having delivered and furnished intoxicating liquor; punishment three years in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without any statement of facts. There is only one bill of exceptions, which complains of the refusal of a severance. Therefrom we learn that' when this case was called, appellant sought a severance in order that Jewell Snelson might be first put upon trial. From a qualification appended to the ,-bill ..of exceptions we learn that. Jewell Snelson had been transferred from the county jail of Knox county to the jail in Hardeman county prior to the trial term of the court below, and that,'when appellant’s motion for severance was presented, same was held up by the court, and an officer' was dispatchéd to Hardeman eounty to bring Jewell Snelson into court in order that she might be first tried. The officer reported that Jewell Snelson was not in custody, and could not be found. The court thereupon ordered' the sheriff to see if he could ascertain the whereabouts of said Jewell Snelson, and, failing in this, the court declined to grant the motion for severance upon the ground that to do so would operate as a continuance to this appellant. We perceive no abuse of the discretion of the trial court in this matter. While severance is a matter of right, it is specially stated that it shall not be granted if it operated as a continuance of the case.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

A rehearing is sought on two grounds, —one, that -the indictment charges no offense against the law; second, that it was error to refuse appellant’s application for severance. In Wimberly v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 152, 265 S. W. 155, the sufficiency of an-indictment charging the furnishing of intoxicating liquor was discussed, and the conclusion announced by a majority of the court that, where the indictment merely charged the language of the statute in this regard, and set out no facts showing as to how such furnishing was done, such indictment upon proper motion made in limine should be quashed, but that, no such motion having been made, an objection made thereto in a motion in arrest of judgment came too late. In the instant case there was no attack upon the indictment either by a motion to quash or a motion in arrest of judgment. To attack the validity of an indictment for the first time in a motion for rehearing upon this ground is manifestly too late.

We think the question of the refusal to grant a severance correctly decided in the opinion on original hearing.

The motion for rehearing is overruled. 
      <§5?For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     