
    GILES v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 28, 1913.)
    1. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 205) — Violation of Local Option Law — Affidavit— Sufficiency.
    An affidavit charging a violation of the local option law need not allege that the sale of liquor was unlawful.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. § 225; Dec. Dig. § 205.]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 596) — Continuance-Absence of Impeaching Witness.
    It is not error to refuse a continuance to procure testimony to impeach the complaining witness by proof of contradictory statements.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1328-1330; Dec. Dig. § 596.]
    3. Criminal Law •(§ 1159) — Verdict—Conclusiveness.
    A verdict on the sharply conflicting testimony of the complaining witness and accused will not be disturbed on appeal.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3074-3083; Dec. Dig. § 1159.]
    Appeal from Sabine County Court; J. B. Lewis, Judge.
    Clark Giles was convicted of violating the local option law, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law, his punishment being assessed at a fine of $25 and 20 days’ imprisonment in the county jail.

The affidavit is attacked because it does not allege that the sale was “unlawful.” The word “unlawful” is not necessary to be stated in the pleadings charging a violation of the local option law. The complaint and information are sufficient to charge the offense.

Appellant filed an application for a continuance on account of the testimony of one W. S. Smith, alleging that Smith was foreman of the grand jury, and the complaining witness .was before the grand» jury. Smith was wanted to impeach the complaining witness on a certain statement which was supposed to be contrary to his testimony on the trial of the case. As a rule applications for continuance to secure impeaching testimony should not be granted. It seems that this testimony was only impeaching, and therefore the court did not err in overruling the application.

The issue was sharply drawn, the witness for the state testifying he bought the whisky from appellant, and appellant denies this emphatically. This was a matter for the jury, and this court would not be justified under the decisions to reverse the judgment for this reason.

The judgment is affirmed.  