Engman v. State

PRENDERGAST, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted for-selling whisky in prohibition territory, and his punishment assessed at the lowest prescribed by law.

The evidence, while disputed, was amply sufficient to sustain the-verdict. It showed a sale by appellant as alleged.

Appellant’s first bill of exceptions complains of some remarks by the judge to the jury, after' delivering his written charge to them,, giving them some directions. What the judge said to the jury was in no way prejudicial to appellant and presents no error. Tyrone v. State, 77 Texas Crim. Rep., 493, 180 S. W. Rep., 125,…