
    Eusebio Ortez v. The State.
    No. 8451.
    Decided May 28, 1924.
    Rehearing denied June 27, 1924.
    Selling Intoxicating Liquor — Sufficiency of the Evidence — Practice on Appeal.
    In the absence of bills of exception, the indictment being regular and nothing is discerned in the record requiring or justifying a reversal of the judgment, the same is affirmed.
    [Rehearing denied June'27, 1924. Reporter.]
    Appeal from the District Court of San Patricio. Tried below before the Honorable T. M. Cox.
    Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the ease.
    
      M. C. Nelson, for appellant.
    
      Tom Garrard, Attorney for the State and Grover C. Morris, Assistant Attorney for the State.
   MORROW, Presiding Judge.

— The offense is the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of one year.

The State’s testimony, if believed, is sufficient to show that' the appellant committed the offense charged.

No bills of exception are found bringing forward for review any rulings of the trial court. The motion for new trial raises no questions which can be reviewed save the sufficiency of the evidence.

The indictment seems regular. We discern nothing in the record requiring or justifying a reversal of the judgment. An affirmance is ordered.

Affirmed.  