
    BRILEY v. STATE.
    No. 24474.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 9, 1949.
    Jack Varner, Nacogdoches, for appellant.
    George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

. Appellant was assessed a fine of $50.00 on a charge of driving a motor vehicle on a public highway while intoxicated.

It is not .necessary to-'discuss the evidence-. Bill of. Exception No. 1 complains of the .jury verdict. As -shown by the,judgment entered ⅛.the.-case,.the jury was given its charge and;.after considering the evidence, returned-,its 'verdict in the following language:. “We,' .the-, jury,- find the defendant guilty and-assesS his punishment at a fine of $50." The'bill complaining of this is without merit;

Bill of Exception' No.. 2 complains of the argument of the district, attorney,' in the following language, “Gentlemen of the Jury: I do npt object to a. reasonable fine in this case, for when convicted the defendant will be deprived of his rjght to drive a motor .vehicle for a period of six months. And he is charged with and will be tried on a charge of reckless driving.” The bill sets out, further, that this argument was not made in reply to or invited by any argument of defendant’s counsel; that if is not based on any evidence in the case; that it wás “improper and highly prejudicialthat it “constituted testimony by the County. Attorney and was inflammatory and calculated to injure the rights of defendant * * It is stated that the defendant objected to.it and requested the court in writing to withdraw it from the jury, which he declined to do.

This bill is approved by the court and constitutes a certificate that error was committed in the trial of the case. On the basis of the judge’s certificate, the case must be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. It is. so ordered.  