
    SMITH v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 27, 1912.)
    1. Intoxicating Liquobs (§ 236) — -Illegal Sale — Evidence.
    The positive testimony of a witness that he bought whisky from defendant justifies a finding of such sale, on prosecution for violation of the liquor law.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §•§ 300-322; Dec. Dig. § 236.]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 1114) — Appeal — Bill on Exceptions.
    A bill of exceptions, which, without stating grounds of objection, recites merely that defendant excepted to the verdict when it was returned into court, the verdict merely finding defendant guilty and assessing his punishment, presents nothing for review, other than the sufficiency of the evidence.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2918, 2921; Dec. Dig. § 1114.]
    3. Criminal Law (§ 1090) — Appeal—Bill on Exceptions.
    A fact, merely recited in a motion for new trial, but not verified by bill of exceptions, and with nothing in the record to indicate its truth, cannot be considered on appeal.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2789, 2803-2827, 2927, 2928, 2948, 3204; Dec. Dig. § 1090.]
    4. Criminal Law (§’1056) — Appeal—Error in Instructions — Misdemeanor Case.
    The giving, in a misdemeanor case, of a charge which is on the weight of testimony, is not reversible error, in the absence of exception thereto at the time, or request for a special charge on the subject.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §■§ 2668, 2670; Dec. Dig. § 1056.]
    Appeal from Sabine County Court; T. R. Smith, Judge.
    Abe Smith was convicted of illegal sale of liquor, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Goodrich & Lewis, of Hemphill, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
       For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was prosecuted under information and complaint charging him with unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors in Sabine county; the county having theretofore prohibited the sale of such liquors. No question is raised that prohibition was in force in said county; but in the motion it is earnestly insisted that the evidence does not support the verdict. T. R. Allen testifies positively to a purchase of whisky from appellant, and his evidence would justify the jury in so finding.

The verdict of the jury is as follows: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty and assess his punishment at a fine of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) and twenty days’ imprisonment in the county jail.” The only bill of exceptions in the record recites that “defendant excepted to said verdict at the time same was returned into court,” but no grounds of objection are stated in the bill; consequently nothing is presented that we could review, other than the sufficiency of the testimony, and on this point the state’s evidence, if believed by the jury, would show the guilt of appellant.

The matters complained of in the second ground in the motion are not verified by any bill of exceptions, and under such circumstances we cannot review the action of the court in regard thereto. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the state’s witness was ever sent to jail, other than as stated in the motion for new trial; and, this fact not being verified by the judge’s signature, we cannot consider it.

In the third ground appellant complains of the charge of the court on alibi, insisting that it was upon the weight of the testimony. We are inclined to agree with appellant in his criticism, but this is a conviction for a misdemeanor. No exception to the charge was reserved at the time it was given, and no special charge requested in regard to the matter; consequently this does not present reversible error.

The judgment is affirmed.  