
    GILMORE v. STATE.
    (No. 6442.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 23, 1921.
    
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 25, 1922.)
    1. Criminal law 094 — Judgment affirmed if no error appears in record.
    Where there is no statement of facts or bills of exceptions, and no error appears in the record, judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    2. Criminal law <®=c1032(6) — Objection to indictment for duplicity must be urged in lim-ine.
    Objections to an indictment because of the fact that it appears to be duplicitous and charges several offenses in one count, to be considered on appeal, must be urged in limine.
    Appeal from District Court, Collin County; F. E. Wilcox, Judge.
    J. W. Gilmore was convicted of transporting liquor in violation of the Dean Law, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Reid Williams, of Dallas, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   LATTIMORB, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Collin county of the offense of transporting intoxicating liquor in violation of what is known as the Dean Law (Acts 36th Leg. [2d Called Sess.] e. 78), and liis punishment fixed at one-year in the penitentiary.

The case is before us on appeal without any statement of facts or any bills of exceptions. Appellant’s motion to quash the indictment, based on an alleged conflict in the provisions of the Dean Law with the Eighteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, was properly overruled. The question has been passed upon by us adversely to the contention of appellant, as appears from his motion. Ex parte Gilmore, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 529, 228 S. W. 199.

No error appearing in the record, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

In a motion for rehearing it is insisted that this case should be reversed and dismissed because of the fact that the indictment appears to be duplicitous and charges in one count several distinct offenses. An examination of the motion to quash, presented by the appellant, makes it plain that no such objection was urged to the indictment, either by motion to quash or in arrest of judgment. The uniform holding of this coprt seems to be that an objection of this character must be urged in limine. Coney v. State, 2 Tex. App. 62; Berliner v. State, 6 Tex. App. 181; Rumage v. State, 55 S. W. 64; Cabiness v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. R. 409, 146 S. W. 934; Green v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. R. 446, 147 S. W. 593.

This being the only question raised by this motion, and being of opinion that appellant’s position is not sustained, the motion for rehearing will be overruled. . 
      i§=3For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in ail Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     