
    ALEXANDER v. STATE.
    (No. 3748.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 27, 1915.
    On Motion for Rehearing, Nov. 17, 1915.)
    1. Criminal Law «&wkey;l(X92 — Appeal—Biílii of Exceptions — Time foe Filing.
    A bill of exceptions, taken on appeal from a conviction in the county court, could not be considered, where it was filed .22 days after court adjourned; the time for filing bills of exception and statements of fact being limited by statute to 20 days after adjournment of court, when predicated upon an order of the court.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2803, 2829; 2834-2861, 2919; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;1092J
    2. Criminal Law <&wkey;1159 — Question of Fact — Conflicting Evidence.
    Where the evidence for the state would justify a conviction, and that for defendant would show that he did not sell whisky, but acted as another’s agent in securing it, the Question was for the jury, and the Court of Criminal Appeals will not disturb the conviction.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 8074-3083; Dec. Dig. <5&wkey; 1159.]
    Appeal from Kaufman County Court; James A. Cooley, Judge.
    Carl Alexander was convicted of violating the local option law, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Chas. Ashworth, of Kaufman, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, J.

Appellant was convicted for violating the local option law; his punishment being assessed at a fine of $25 and 20 days’ imprisonment in the county jail.

There is a bill of exceptions in the record to the refusal of the court to permit the prosecuting witness Evans to answer the following question:

“Did you not have a fight with the defendant that same night after the party at the place where you say the liquor was sold?”

He would have, had he been permitted to do so, testified he had such a fight. Appellant contends this was relevant to show motive with which the witness was testifying against appellant. The bill of exceptions cannot be considered, because it wad filed 22 days after court adjourned. In county court cases the time for filing bills of exception and statement of facts is limited by statute, as construed by this court, to 20 days after adjournment of court, and this must be predicated upon order of court. This bill, therefore, cannot be considered.

It is contended the evidence is not sufficient. That is sharply an issue. That for the state would justify the conviction, and that for the defendant would show that he did not sell whisky, but got it from another party for the benefit of the people who wanted the whisky, and that he acted as their agent in securing the whisky, and not as a seller. The jury had the right to solve that question, and believe the state’s witnesses. On that ground this court would not be justified in disturbing the verdict of the jury.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

On a previous day of this term the judgment herein was affirmed, without considering the bills of exception; they being filed too late. The other ground presented on original submission was want of sufficient evidence to show the alleged sale of intoxicating liquors in local option territory. On motion for rehearing a new proposition is presented, to wit: That the statement of facts does not show that local option was in effect in Kaufman county. This for the first time is called to our attention, and not noticed in the original opinion. An inspection of the evidence discloses that this position is well taken. The evidence does not show that local option was in effect in Kaufman county. A conviction for violation of the local option law cannot be had until after the adoption of that law by the people in the given territory, and this must be shown by the statement of facts.

For this reason, the affirmance will be set aside, the rehearing granted, and the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded. 
      <§=oFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     