
    McVERSE v. STATE.
    (No. 9832.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 10, 1926.)
    Criminal law &wkey;>939(l).
    Evidence claimed -to be newly discovered, but which could have been procured for trial with slightest diligence, heM not ground for new trial.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Damar County; Geo. P. Blackburn, Judge.
    Robert McVerse was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.-
    Sturgeon & Wiygul, of Paris, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   BAKER, J.

The appellant • was convicted in the district court of Lamar county for selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment assessed at one year in the penitentiary.

The record discloses that the state relied on a straight sale by the appellant to the witness Lum Odom, and the defense was a denial of sale and an alibi. There are no objections to the court’s charge or bills of exceptions in the record, except a general bill setting up the entire motion. for new trial, wherein, among other things, it was contended by the appellant that the court erred in not granting him a new trial for newly discovered testimony. The record discloses that this alleged newly discovered testimony was to prove that at the time of the arrest of the prosecuting witness he was in a state of intoxication, and, when asked if he desired bond, he replied he did not care what they did with him, and from an attorney, Mr. Eubanks, the appellant expected to prove that the general reputation of said prosecuting witness for truth and veracity was bad. The record discloses that both of said proposed witnesses lived in Lamar county, and that one was a sheriff and the other was a practicing attorney, both of whom were in frequent contact with the appellant’s counsel, and with the slightest diligence said testimony could have been procured for the trial. The court’s explanation in overruling defendant’s motion in this particular shows no error therein.

We have carefuUy examined the entire record, and, finding no error in the trial of this case, are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court should he in all things affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.

PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court. 
      ©ujoFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     