
    SINCLAIR v. STATE.
    (No. 3190.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 24, 1914.)
    1. Intoxicating Liquors (§• 236*) — Wrongful Sale — Evidence.
    Positive evidence of a witness that he purchased three pints of whisky’ from defendant and paid him $3 therefor was sufficient to sustain a conviction of violating the prohibition law.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 300-322; Dee. Dig. §. 236.*]
    2. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 176*) — 'Wrongful Sale — Defense.
    In a prosecution for wrongful selling of liquor to H. in violation of the prohibition law, evidence that defendant had been bound over to await the action of the grand jury on a complaint charging him with pursuing the occupation of selling intoxicating liquors, and that the state in such proceeding relied on the sale to H. as one of the sales by which it was intended to show that defendant was guilty of pursuing the occupation, furnished no defense.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Dec. Dig. § 176.*]
    3. Criminal Law (§ 917*) — New Trial — Continuance — Denial — Absence of Witness.
    Denial of a motion for a continuance for absence of a witness is not ground for a new trial, where the witness attended the trial and testified.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2161, 2162; Dec. Dig. § 917.*]
    Appeal from Red River County Court; Geo. Morrison, Judge.
    'J. T. Sinclair was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was prosecuted and convicted of violating the prohibition law, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $50 and 40 days’ imprisonment in the county jail.

Mr. Hollingsworth swears positively that he purchased three pints of whisky from appellant and paid him $3 therefor. Consequently the complaint that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction cannot be sustained.

Appellant insists that as in justice court he was bound over to await the action of the grand jury on a complaint charging him with pursuing the occupation of selling-intoxicating liquors, and that in said' complaint he was charged with selling to Garrison, Riley, Yates, and several other persons, that he should have been permitted to introduce evidence that the sale to Hollingsworth was one of the sales relied on by the state to prove that appellant was guilty of pursuing the occupation, and for this reason this prosecution would not lie. We decided adversely to appellant’s contention in the ease of Robinson v. State, 147 S. W. 245.

As the witness for wliom appellant sought a continuance attended court and testified on the trial of the ease, this ground of the motion presents no error.

The judgment is affirmed. •  