Full opinion text
LATTIMORE, J. Conviction for selling intoxicating liquor; punishment, one year in the penitentiary. The state’s testimony fully makes out a case. The jury have settled any fact contention against appellant. There is but one bill of exceptions, and this complains of the refusal of a continuance. Looking to the application therefor, we observe that no copy of any process, or application for éame, was attached to the motion for continuance. It is not stated therein that same was the first application, and in such case we regard it. as a subsequent motion. McKenzie v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 11 S.W.(2d) 172, 178. The application does not set up that the testimony cannot be had from any other source known to appellant, this being essential in a second application. See McKenzie v. State, supra. On the point that a bill of exceptions to disclose error in regard to the refusal of a continuance must show that process was issued and placed in the hands of the proper officer, see Bradford v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 122, 224 S. W. 901. The indictment, charge of the court, judgment, and sentence appear to be in conformity with law. No error appearing, the judgment will be affirmed.