
    GRISHAM v. STATE.
    (No. 3818.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 10, 1915.)
    1. Intoxicating Liquors &wkey;>238 — Unlawful Sale — Question for Jury.
    In a prosecution for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor in a prohibition county, the positive testimony of the state’s witness that defendant sold him intoxicating liquor as alleged in the indictment, denied by defendant, made the offense a question for the jury.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 324-330; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;> 238.]
    2. Ceiminal Law <&wkey;1092 — Exceptions — Verification.
    A so-called “Appellant’s Exceptions to the Charge of the Court,” not’ verified by the trial judge, or shown to have been presented to him for Ms action before the trial was concluded, cannot be considered.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2803, 2829, 2834-2861, 2919; Dec. Dig. <s&wkey;1092.]
    Appeal from District Court, Trinity County; S. W. Dean, Judge.
    L. M. Grisham was convicted for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor in a prohibition county, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PRENDERGAST, P. J.

Appellant was convicted for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor in a prohibition county, a felony, and his punishment assessed at the lowest prescribed by law.

'He contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict. The state’s witness testified positively that the appellant sold him intoxicating liquor at the time and place alleged in the indictment. He denied this. That was a question for the jury. We cannot disturb the verdict.

There appears in the record what is termed “Appellant’s Exceptions to the Charge of the Court.” However, it is in no way verified by the trial judge, and it is not shown anywhere or in any way that it was presented to the trial judge for his action, or that it was ever called to his attention at any time before the trial was concluded. Hence it cannot be considered. Ross v. State, 170 S. W. 305.

The judgment is affirmed.  