
    BLACKBURN v. STATE.
    No. 20836.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 14, 1940.
    On Motion to Reinstate Appeal March 20, 1940.
    L. W. .Sampson and S. K. Sampson, both of Decatur, for appellant.
    Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The conviction is for the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the pur-ppse of sale in a dry area; penalty assessed at confinement in the county jail for fifty days.

The record fails to show that notice .of appeal was given and entered upon the minutes of the trial court. In the ábsence of such a showing, this court is without jurisdiction to determine the matters presented for review. Art. 827, C.C.P. See Curbow v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 132 S.W.2d 853, and cases there cited. -

'The appeal is dismissed.

On Motion to Reinstate Appeal.

KRUEGER, Judge.

At a former day of- this term we iismissed 'the appeal in this case because the record failed to show that notice of’ appeal was given, and entered upon the minutes of the trial court. Since then the record has been perfected in this respect and we will now consider and dispose of the case on its merits. The only question presented for review is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain ‘appellant’s conviction.

The state’s .testimony .shows that the officers drove- up to. appellant’s home and called’ for him. -He invited- them -intp the ’house. They told hirp -their, .purpose in being there. Th ey'.did not- tell; him they had any search warrant. He told them to go ahead and search; - that they did- not need a search warrant. They found 10 half-pints of whisky in the barn and two empty whisky cases in the house which had the same brand marked thereon as the whisky which they found in the barn. The state also offered in evidence the minutes of the Commissioners Court showing that local option was in full force and effect in Wise County. Appellant did not testify or offer any affirmative defense. We deem the evidence sufficient, to sustain his conviction. In his brief, appellant complains of the introduction of the whisky found as a result of the search, but no oN jection seems to have been interposed to its introduction in evidence. Appellant in his brief also speaks of certain bills of exceptions, but none appear in the transcript. Hence these matters,’ although discussed in his brief; cannot be considered in .the áb-sence of proper bills of exceptions;

No error of a reversible nature appearing, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. • ■ .

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.  