Legal Opinion

Efird v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided January 28, 1903No. 2515PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Ho statement necessary.

1Opinion of the Court

BROOKS, Judge.

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

The first bill of exceptions complains that" the court erred in permitting the State to prove by George Blankenship that Lee Blankenship told witness that he had bought whisky of appellant on a certain time in the town of Princeton. Appellant objected because hearsay, defendant was not present, and it was made seventy yards from defendant’s place of business. We think the first two grounds of objection, in our opinion, are well…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Pitner v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1897
  2. Myers v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1897
  3. Pike v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1899
  4. Bennett v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1899

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Ex Parte PollardCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1907
  2. Nobles v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1913
  3. Shook v. JourneayCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1912
  4. Long v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1910
  5. People v. BullockMichigan Supreme Court · 1912

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API