
    CLAYBROOK v. STATE.
    (No. 7163.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 4, 1923.
    Rehearing Denied June 27, 1923.)
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;695(2) — Objection to evidence held ineffective to present statutory question.
    An objection to evidence in general terms held, ineffective as an objection to a confession, on tbe ground that it was obtained while accused was under arrest and unwarned, in violation of Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 810.
    2. Criminal law c&wkey;i0S(KI9) — Motion for new trial not place to raise first objection to admission of evidence.
    Objections to evidence, raised for tbe first time on motion for new trial, and unsupported by bill of exceptions taken at the time of trial, will not ordinarily present the questions in such manner as to call for consideration.
    Appeal from District Court, Knox County; J. H. Milam, Judge.
    Will Claybrook was convicted of unlawful transportation of intoxicáting liquors, and be appeals.
    Affirmed.
    A. C. Nicholson, of Dallas, and Cecil Storey, of Yernon, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asgt. Atty. Gen., for tbe State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for tbe unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquors, with a punishment of years’ confinement in tbe penitentiary.

This is a companion case to Land v. State and Glover v. State, both reported in 247 S. W. on pages 554 and 556. Tbe facts are identical, and tbe legal questions thé same as raised in Land’s Case, and there settled adversely to appellant’s contention. Tbe objection to certain testimony as being violative of tbe statute on confessions (Code Cr. Proc. art. 810), which called for reversal of Glover’s Case, was not raised in tbe instant one, leaving this in all respects like Land’s, and demands a similar disposition.

The judgment is accordingly affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

DATTIMORE, J.

If there be anything in the record presenting objection to any testimony claimed to be in the nature of a confession, we hare been unable to find it, after diligent search in the light afforded us by the motion for rehearing. Appellant asked four special charges, all of which were given, save the one requesting a peremptory instruction of not guilty. He has nine bills of exception, only one of which refers in any. way to the actions or words of the accused under circumstances in which he might be deemed under arrest, and this bill, after its recital of the facts objected to, states'the objection as follows :

“Which testimony was objected to by the defendant at the time it was offered, upon the following grounds, to wit: ‘As being incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, highly prejudicial, has nothing to do with the count in the indictment for which the defendant was being tried, to wit, transporting whisky, as to which way he went after he was arrested, or whether he went on his own accord or not.’,”

This manifests no objection to anything on the ground that appellant was under arrest and unwarned, nor is there aught-in the facts stated in said bill from which this court could infer that appellant was then under arrest. Questions of procedure during a trial, raised only in the motion for new trial, and not supported by a bill of exceptions taken at the time of trial, would not ordinarily present the questions in such manner as to call for the consideration of this court.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled. 
      <$=>For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBJDR in all Koy-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     