Bryant v. State
Bryant v. State
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The offence of which appellant was convicted is charged to have been committed in violation of the Local Option Act; but
The motion for a new trial, alleging that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence, should have been sustained. Sec. 1433 of the Code, to the effect that no judgment shall be reversed, because of any error or omission in the case in the court below, unless the record shows that the errors complained of were made a ground of special exception in such ■court, does not operate in any case, so as to supply the proof necessary to show that the offence charged has been committed.
Reversed and remanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- J. O. Bryant v. State
- Cited By
- 6 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Local Option Act. Indictment under. Necessary evidence. Case in judgment. B.was indicted and convicted for selling liquor in Union county in violation of the local option act, approved March 11,1886. On the trial there was no evidence to show that such act had ever become operative in Union county. Held, that without such evidence a conviction was improper. Norton v. State, ante, @97, and Loughridge v. State, Ms. Opinion. 2. Same. Practice. Special exception when not necessary. Section 1433, Code of 1880. In the case above stated the defendant moved for a new trial, on the general ground that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence. Held, that the motion should have been sustained, without regard to Section 1433, Code of 1880, providing “that no judgment shall be reversed because of any error or omission in the case in the court below, unless the record shows that the errors complained of were made a ground of special exception in such court,” which does not operate, in any case, to supply proof that the offence charged has been committed.