TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Exleben v. State

Joe Exleben v. State

Exleben v. State, 45 S.W.2d 205 (Tex. Crim. App. 1932)
Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 6, 1932
Docket
No. 14698
Judges
Morrow
Citations
45 S.W.2d 205119 Tex. Crim. 2111932 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 56

Opinion of the Court — Morrow

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

Save the contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict, there is presented by the record no qustion of law.

A building belonging to the appellant and used as a garage took fire. In the building were a number of kegs of whisky, one of which was in an automobile which was also in the building. Some of the whisky was destroyed. Something over eighty gallons were seized. Testifying in behalf of the state, officers claimed that the appellant stated that the garage, the car and the whisky belonged to him.

The appellant’s dwelling house, which was nearby, was searched but no whisky was found therein.

In his own behalf the appellant gave testimony in substance as follows: He owned the garage but about a month before the fire had rented it to Dave Blaylock, but Blaylock did not take possession. He had also sold Blaylock the Ford car in which the keg of whisky was found. He refrained from telling the officers that the whisky belonged to Blaylock for the reason that Blaylock was sick and he feared that an attempt to arrest him would jeopardize his health. Blaylock’s illness resulted in his death. Appellant disclaimed the ownership of the whisky.

*212 The officers' testified that the appellant admitted the ownership of the whisky and stated that he was ageing it for sale.

The issues of fact were submitted to the jury in a charge against which there is no complaint urged and in which no fault has been observed.

Deeming the evidence sufficient, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list