
    James Clark v. The State.
    No. 11494.
    Delivered April 4, 1928.
    1. —Transporting Intoxicating Liquor — Evidence—Held Sufficient.
    Where the state’s evidence established a transportation of intoxicating liquor, which was controverted by appellant’s testimony, this issue of fact was properly determined by the jury in favor of the state.
    2. —Same—Bills of Exception — Filed Too Late — Cannot Be Considered.
    Where bills of exception were filed after the expiration of the time granted for filing by the trial court, they cannot be considered on appeal. See Art. 700, C. C. P., 1925; McDowell v. State, 100 Tex. Crim. Rep. 208; Mann v. State, 102 Tex. Crim. Rep. 210, and Vernon’s Ann. C. C. P. of 1925, Vol. 3, Supp., p. 13.
    Appeal from the District Court of San Augustine County. Tried below before the Hon. V. H. Stark, Judge.
    Appeal from a conviction for transporting intoxicating liquor, penalty one year in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    No brief filed for appellant.
    
      A. A. Dawson of Canton, State’s Attorney, for the State.
   MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Transporting intoxicating liquor is the offense, punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

The evidence of both the state and the appellant is to the effect that the appellant was in possession of a jar of whiskey. That of the state supports the conclusion that the appellant transported the whiskey. This was controverted by the appellant’s testimony and by that of his witnesses. The issue of fact thus presented for solution was submitted to the jury and determined in favor of the state.

In the record there are copied three bills of exceptions, all of which were filed November 15, 1927. The motion for new trial was overruled and notice of appeal given on the 11th day of August. Under the statute but ninety days after notice of appeal are allowed within which to file the statement of facts and bills of exceptions. See Art. 760, C. C. P., 1925; McDowell v. State, 100 Tex. Crim. Rep. 208; Mann v. State, 102 Tex. Crim. Rep. 210, and other cases collated in Vernon’s Ann. Texas C. C. P., 1925, Vol. 3, Supp., p. 13. The bills were too late to form the basis of complaint. They have been read, however, but we find aught in them which would authorize a reversal.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.  