MEMORANDUM DECISIONS In re GALIVAN. (Cr. 227.) (District Court of Appeal, Second District, California. Dec. 12, 1911.) Application for writ of habeas corpus by J. B. Galivan. Denied, and petitioner remanded into custody. E. W. Camp, U. T. Clotfelter, and M. W. Reed, for petitioner. R. B. Goodcell, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The Justices of this court being unable to concur in a judgment, the writ must be and is denied, and petitioner remanded into custody. therefore, nothing here for this court to pass ALLEN v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Feb. 3, 1912.) Appeal from Wagoner County Court; Leon B. Fant, Judge. Miss Joe Allen was convicted of_violating the prohibitory law and appeals. Dismissed. Sponsler & Graves, for plaintiff in error. Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error was conPENTECOSTAL UNION et al. ▼. Mc-victed at the April, 1911, term of the county CLURKEN et al. (Court of Appeals of Colo- court of Wagoner county on a charge of mainrado. Jan. 8, 1912.) Appeal from District taining a place for the sale of intoxicating liqCourt, Denver County; George W. Allen, uors, and her punishment fixed at a fine of $50 Judge. Action by Ida McClurken and another and imprisonment in the county jail for a peagainst the Pentecostal Union and others. riod of 30 days. The Attorney General has Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants appeal. filed a motion to dismiss the appeal herein for Affirmed. Allen & Webster for appellants. the following reason: "Because the record George P. Winters, for appellees. PER CURIAM. The appellants, defendants below, bring this case here on appeal from a judgment of the district court for the city and county of Denver, complaining of a judgment rendered by said court on a trial to a jury. The only assignment of error made by appellants in this case is that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. An examination of the complaint satisfies us that this contention is not tenable, and that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, which is accordingly done. Judgment affirmed. WALLING, J., not participating. WYOMING NAT. BANK et al. v. SHIPPEY. (Court of Appeals of Colorado. Jan. 8. 1912.) Appeal from Larimer County Court; C. B. Benson, Judge. Action between the Wy. oming National Bank and another and John T. Shippey. From the judgment, the Wyoming National Bank and another appeal, and move for an order remanding the cause to the Supreme Court. Motion denied.. Annis & Stow, for appellants. Rhodes, Temple & Foster, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Appellants filed their motion in this court for an order remanding the cause to the Supreme Court, for the reason that a decision of the cause necessarily involves the construction of a provision of the Constitution of the state of Colorado and relates to a franchise. No brief has been filed in support of the motion. Neither has counsel pointed out wherein a decision would necessarily involve or relate to either of the matters suggested by the motion. But from an examination of the record the court is of the opinion that the motion is not well taken, and it is accordingly denied. In re ALLISON. (Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Jan. 16, 1912.) Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 2. Petition of Kenner Whitaker Allison for writ of habeas corpus. Dismissed. BREWER, C. This is an original petition in habeas corpus. It was filed in this court on the 3d day of March, 1910. It seems to have been filed by the petitioner in person, as no attorney appears anywhere in the record. No writ appears to have been issued, and there shows that this is an attempted appeal from a judgment of conviction for a misdemeanor rendered in the county court of Wagoner county on the 1st day of July, 1911, and the petition in error and case-made were not filed in this court until the 9th day of September, 1911, more than 60 days after the rendition of such judgment; no order having been made extending the time within which to file petition in error and case-made in this court beyond the time allowed by law." There is no answer to the motion to dismiss, and it is supported by the record. The motion is sustained, and the appeal accordingly dismissed. BROOKS v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Jan. 23, 1912.) Appeal from Creek County Court; Josiah G. Davis, Judge. Joseph Brooks was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Rutherford, Fairchild & Davis, for Affirmed. Smith C. Matson and E. G. plaintiff in error. Spilman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Creek county on the 6th day of December, 1910, on a charge of violating the prohibitory law, and on the 10th day of said month was sentenced to pay fine of $50 and be imprisoned in the county jail for a period of 60 days. The appeal was perfected in this court on April 3, 1911. Upon a careful examination of the record we find no errors sufficient to justify a reversal of this cause. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. BROWN v. STATE. (Criminal Court of ApFeb. 3, 1912.) Appeal peals of Oklahoma. from Kay County Court; Claude Duval, Judge. Ira Brown was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Reversed and remanded. W. B. Clark, for plaintiff in error. Smith C. Matson and E. G. Spilman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Kay county at the April, 1911, term, on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and on the 11th day of May following adjudged to pay a fine of $250 and be confined in the county jail for a period of 90 days. The proof on the part of the state was by one witness, who is contradicted by witnesses for the defense, and by the defendant himself. following: "If you find that any witness has willfully and knowingly testified falsely to any material question, you are then at liberty to disregard the whole of such witness' testimony, except so far as the same may be corroborated by other credible witnesses." Such an instruction as this has been condemned by this court in many cases. In Rea v. State, 3 Okl. Cr. 269, 105 Pac. 381, the objection to this instruction is pointed out and made clear. The opinion in that case was filed on the 7th day of December, 1909. Just why many of the county courts of this state persist in giving instructions of this kind, after they have been so often condemned, and so long condemned, is rather puzzling. It is more than two years since this doctrine was announced, and it has been uniformly followed. It is not the purpose of this court to assume a hostile attitude toward the inferior courts in any sense, but the people of this state are entitled to have the law properly administered. It costs the taxpayers of the various counties large sums of money to defray the expense of these prosecutions, and oftentimes guilty men are allowed to escape punishment by reason of errors that are inexcusable in the light of precedents that are before the trial courts for their guidance. In some cases this court might not feel called upon to reverse a case solely upon an objection to a particular instruction on the theory that the evidence is conclusive as to the guilt of the accused. But in this case the great weight of the testimony is against the contention of the state, at least as to numbers of witnesses testifying. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and this cause remanded, with directions to grant a new trial. BULLARD v. STATE, (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Feb. 3, 1912.) Appeal from Comanche County Court; James H. Wolverton, Judge. Henry Bullard was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Dismissed. S. M. Cunningham, for appellant. Chas. West and Smith C. Matson, for the State. PER CURIAM. On the 1st day of April, 1911, judgment was rendered against appellant for a violation of the prohibitory liquor law, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $50 and 30 days' confinement in the county jail. The transcript of the record was not filed in this court until August 5, 1911, which was 125 days after the rendition of the judgment. As the time for perfecting the appeal had long since expired before the case reached this court, we did not acquire jurisdiction of the case, and the appeal is therefore dismissed, with directions to the county court of Comanche county to proceed with the execution of its judgment. COOK v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Jan. 23, 1912.) Appeal from Garfield County Court; James B. Cullison, Judge. Walt Cook was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Dismissed. H. J. Sturgis, for plaintiff in error. Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Garfield county on a charge of violating the prohibitory law, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $500 and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of 180 days. Judgment and sentence was rendered on the 8th day of June, 1910. The appeal was filed in this court on the 6th day of October, 1910. The Attorney General has filed the following motion to dismiss the appeal: "Comes now Charles West, Attorney General, and appearing especially, and for the purposes of this motion alone, moves the court to dismiss the pretended appeal in this case for the following reason: Because the record shows that this is an attempted appeal from a judgment of con viction for a misdemeanor rendered in the county court of Garfield county on the 8th day of June, 1910, at which time the court granted 60 days to make and serve the case-made and 90 days to file petition in error in this court (Record, pp. 57, 58). Thereafter, to wit, on the 7th day of September, 1910, said trial judge attempted to extend the time for filing the petition in error and case-made in this court for a period of 30 days; but the Attorney General says that said trial judge had lost jurisdiction to make such order because the time theretofore granted, to wit, 90 days from the 8th day of June, 1910, to file petition in error and casemade in this court, had expired on and with the 6th day of September, 1910. Wherefore the Attorney General says that said order of September 7, 1910, attempting to extend the time for filing petition in error and case-made in this court, is absolutely void, and that said casemade was not filed in this court until the 6th day of October, 1910, and after the 90 days from the 8th day of June, 1910, had expired. Wherefore the Attorney General says that this court is without jurisdiction to consider this case, except to dismiss the appeal." We have carefully examined the record, and find that the motion is well taken. This court has no jurisdiction to determine the appeal on its merits. The motion to dismiss is sustained, and the appeal accordingly dismissed. COYLE v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Feb. 3, 1912.) Appeal from Garfield County Court; Winfield Scott, Judge. Ora Coyle was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Dismissed. Harry O. Glasser and W. O. Cromwell, for plaintiff in error. Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Garfield county on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and on the 17th day of May, 1911, was sentenced by the court, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, to pay a fine of $500 and be confined in the county jail for a period of 6 months. The appeal was filed in this court on July 14, 1911. The Attorney General has filed the following motion to dismiss the appeal: "Because the record shows that this is an attempted appeal from a judgment of conviction for a misdemeanor rendered in the county court of Garfield county on the 17th day of May, 1911; that afterwards, on the 28th day of August, 1911, after the 60 days allowed by law in which to file petition in error and case-made in this court had expired, the county judge attempted to extend the time in which to perfect appeal, but said judge was at that time without jurisdiction to make such order; that the petition in error and case-made were not filed in this court until the 14th day of September, 1911, more than 60 days after the rendition of such judgment, no order having been legally made extending the time within which to file petition in error and case-made in this court. No appearance has been made on behalf of accused, and no reply to the motion to dismiss. We take it as confessed, and it is hereby sustained. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. DAY v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Feb. 3, 1912.) Appeal from Kay County Court; Claude Duval, Judge. Wm. Day was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Affirmed. W. B. Clark, for plaintiff in error. Smith C. Matson, and E. G. Spilman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Kay county, at the April, 1911, term, on a charge of selling in toxicating liquor, and adjudged to pay a fine of $250, and be confined in the county jail for a period of 90 days. Upon a careful examination of the record in this case, we find no error sufficient to justify a reversal. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. DODSON v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Jan. 27, 1912.) Appeal from Rogers County Court; H. Tom Kight, Judge. Seymour Dodson was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Reversed and remanded. Archibald Bonds and J. I. Howard, for plaintiff in error. Smith C. Matson and E. G. Spilman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Rogers county at the March, 1911, term, on a charge of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $50 and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of 45 days. The proof shows that the prosecuting witness told the accused to get some beer and charge it to his account, that he did not know whether accused charged him with the cost of the beer or not, and did not testify that accused agreed to charge it to his account. The proof on behalf of accused shows that he did not agree to charge prosecuting witness with the amount, and did not so charge him; that he bought the beer from another party and paid for it himself. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and a new trial awarded. DUNLAP v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Feb. 3, 1912.) Appeal from Woods County Court; W. M. Bickel, Judge. Harve Dunlap was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Affirmed. E. W. Snoddy, for plaintiff in error. E. G. Spilman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error was convicted on the 7th day of April, 1911, in the county court of Woods county, on a charge of violating the prohibitory law, and on the 15th day of said month was sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and be confined in the county jail for a period of 30 days. Finding no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the plaintiff in error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. tend the time within which the appeal should be filed in this court. No other orders having been made for that purpose, the time for filing such appeal as provided by statute lapsed 60 days from the 9th day of January, 1911. This appeal was filed on April 7, 1911, nearly 90 days after the rendition of the judgment. For the reason that the case-made was not served within the time allowed by statute, and the appeal not perfected in this court within the time provided by law, this court is without jurisdiction to review the cause on the merits, and his jurisdiction only to dismiss the appeal. Let the appeal be dismissed. EDWARDS v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Feb. 3, 1912.) Appeal from Custer County Court; J. C. McKnight, Judge. H. E. Edwards was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Dismissed. Jones & Linville, for plaintiff in error. Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error was convicted at the April, 1911, term of the county court of Custer county on a charge of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $100 and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of 30 days. Judgment was rendered on the 11th day of May, 1911. The appeal was filed in this court on the 12th day of September, 1911. The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the following grounds: "Because the record shows that this is an attempted appeal from a judgment of conviction for a misdemeanor rendered in the county court of Custer county on the 11th day of May, 1911, and the petition in error and case-made were not filed in this court until the 12th day of September, 1911, more than 120 days after the rendition of such judgment." There has been no answer filed to the motion, and we take it as confessed. The motion to dismiss is sustained, and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. EDWARDS v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Feb. 3, 1912.) Appeal from Custer County Court; J. C. McKnight, Judge. P. A. Edwards was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Dismissed. Jones & Linville, for plaintiff in erDYER v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Ap-ror. Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for peals of Oklahoma. Jan. 23, 1912.) Appeal the State. from Oklahoma County Court; Sam Hook- PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error was coner, Judge. Tom Dyer was convicted of vio-victed at the April, 1911, term of the county lating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Dis- court of Custer county on a charge of sellmissed. J. H. Beaty, for plaintiff in error. ing intoxicating liquor, and was adjudged to Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the pay a fine of $150 and serve 30 days in the State. county jail. Judgment was rendered on the 11th day of May. The appeal was filed in this court on the 12th day of September. No brief has been filed on behalf of plaintiff in error. The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the following ground: “Because the record shows that this is an attempted appeal from a judgment of conviction for a misdemeanor rendered in the county court of Custer county on the 11th day of May, 1911, and the petition in error and case-made were not filed in this court until the 12th day of September, 1911, more than 120 days after the rendition of such judgment." There has been no answer to the motion to dismiss. We find that the record supports it. The motion is sustained, and the appeal accordingly dismissed. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error was convicted at the January, 1910, term of the county court of Oklahoma county on a charge of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and was on the 9th day of January adjudged to pay a fine of $200 and be confined in the county jail for a period of 60 days. At this time the court was not asked to, and did not, fix the time within which to make and serve case-made, nor extend the time provided by statute for filing the appeal in this court. On March 4th, however, the court extended the time to make and serve case-made in the following language: "The time for making and serving a made in the above-entitled action is hereby extended 30 days from this date, March 4, 1911." The 30 days allowed by statute within which to make and serve a case-made had already expired when this order was made, and the court was therefore without jurisdiction to case FAGAN V. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Feb. 8, 1912.) Ap Scott, Judge. P. F. Fagan was convicted of | for serving the case-made beyond the 30 days violating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Reversed and remanded. McKeever & Walker, for plaintiff in error. Smith C. Matson and E. G. Spilman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error was convicted at the April, 1911, term of the county court of Garfield county on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $50 and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of 30 days. Upon a careful examination of the record in this case, we are impelled to the conclusion that the plaintiff in error did not have a fair and impartial trial as contemplated by law. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded. allowed by law, but there was an order giving appellant 60 days in which to perfect the appeal to this court. The case-made was not served until the 18th day of July, 1911, which was more than the 30 days provided by law in which this should be done. The transcript of the record was not filed in this court until the 4th day of August, 1911, which was after the expiration of the 60 days allowed by the court in which the appeal should be perfected. This court, therefore, did not acquire jurisdiction of the case, and the appeal is dismissed, with direction to the county court of Harmon county to proceed with the execution of its judgment. HAMPTON v. STATE. (Criminal Court of HEINIMAN v. STATE. (Criminal Court Appeals of Oklahoma. Jan. 23, 1912.) Appeal of Appeals of Oklamoma. Jan. 27, 1912.) Apfrom Hughes County Court; P. W. Gardner, peal from Comanche County Court; James H. Judge. Henry Hampton was convicted of vi- Wolverton, Judge. L. Heiniman was convictolating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Af-ed of violating the prohibitory law, and apfirmed. Crump, Skinner & Bailey, for plain- peals. Affirmed. Hamon & Ellis, for plaintiff tiff in error. Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. in error. E. G. Spilman and Smith C. MatGen., for the State. son, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Hughes county, at the January, 1911, term thereof, on a charge of selling intoxicating liquors, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $100 and confinement in the county jail for a period of 100 days. Upon a careful examination of the record, we find no errors sufficient to justify a reversal of this cause. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. HARDIN v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Feb. 3, 1912.) Appeal from Wagoner County Court; Leon B. Fant, Judge. R. C. Hardin was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Dismissed. Sponsler & Graves, for plaintiff in error. Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Wagoner county on a charge of maintaining a place for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, and on July 1, 1911, adjudged to pay a fine of $50 and be confined in the county jail for a period of 30 days. The appeal was filed in this court on the 9th day of September, 1911. The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the following grounds: "Because the record shows that this is an attempted appeal from a judgment of conviction for a misdemeanor rendered in the county court of Wagoner county on the 1st day of July, 1911, and the petition in error and case-made were not filed in this court until the 9th day of September, 1911, more than 60 days after the rendition of such judgment; no order having been made extending the time for filing petition in error and case-made in this court beyond the time allowed by law." There has been no reply to the motion, and we take it as confessed. The motion is sustained, and the appeal accordingly dismissed. HARRIS v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Feb. 3, 1912.) Appeal from Harmon County Court; C. W. King, Judge. Jesse Harris was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Dismissed. J. T. Moore and M. M. McGee, for appellant. Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. PER CURIAM. On the 8th day of May, 1911, judgment was pronounced against appellant for a violation of the prohibitory liquor law, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $50 and 30 days' confinement in the county jail. At the time of the rendition of the judgment there was no order extending the time PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error was convicted at the January, 1911, term of the county court of Comanche county, on a charge of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors, and on the 17th day of March thereafter was sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and be confined in the county jail for a period of 60 days. No errors appearing from the record sufficient to justify a reversal of this cause, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. HEINIMAN v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Jan. 27, 1912.) Appeal from Comanche County Court; James H. Wolverton, Judge. L. Heiniman was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Affirmed. Hamon and Ellis, for plaintiff in error. E. G. Spilman and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error was convicted at the January, 1911, term of the county court of Comanche county on a charge of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor, and on the 17th day of March thereafter was sentenced to pay a fine of $150 and be confined in the county jail for a period of 90 days. No errors appearing from the record sufficient to justify a reversal of this cause, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. HEINIMAN v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Jan. 27, 1912.) Appeal from Comanche County Court; James H. Wolverton, Judge. L. Heiniman was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Affirmed. Hamon & Ellis, for plaintiff in error. E. G. Spilman and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Comanche county on the 1st day of March, 1911, on a charge of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, and thereafter on the 17th day of said month was sentenced to pay a fine of $175 and be imprisoned in the county jail for a period of 30 days. No errors appearing from the record sufficient to justify a reversal of this cause, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. HENNESSEY v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Feb. 3, 1912.) Appeal from Canadian County Court; W. À. Maurer, Judge. Richard Hennessey was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Affirmed. Roberson & Roberson, for plaintiff in error. Smith C. Matson and E. G. Spilman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error was con- victed of violating the prohibitory law, and victed on the 3d day of May, 1911, in the coun-appeals. Reversed. Thompson & Patterson, ty court of Canadian county on a charge of for plaintiff in error. Smith C. Matson, Asst. having the unlawful possession of intoxicating Atty. Gen., for the State. liquor with intent to sell the same, and on the 27th day of said month was sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and be confined in the county jail for a period of 30 days. Finding no error sufficient to justify a reversal, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. The judgment should be corrected to conform to the holding of this court in the case of Ex parte Harry, 6 Okl. Cr., 117 Pac. 726, and the county court of Canadian county is directed to make such correction. HINESLEY v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Feb. 3, 1912.) Appeal from Harmon County Court; C. W. King, Judge. Joe Hinesley was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Affirmed. M. M. McGee, for plaintiff in error. E. G. Spilman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error was convicted at the April, 1911, term of the county court of Harmon county, on a charge of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and on the 8th day of May thereafter, was adjudged to pay a fine of $50 and be confined in the county jail for a period of 30 days. Finding no error in the record prejudicial to the substantial rights of the plaintiff in error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed for want of prosecution. HOLLEY v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Feb. 3, 1912. Appeal from Greer County Court; Jarret Todd, Judge. Polk Holley was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Dismissed. B. F. Van Dyke, for appellant. Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. PER CURIAM. On the 26th day of April, 1911, judgment was rendered against appellant in the county court of Greer county for a violation of the prohibitory liquor law, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $250 and 60 days' confinement in the county jail. The appeal was not perfected by filing the record in this court until the 7th day of August, 1911, which was more than 60 days after the rendition of the judgment. The Legislature has seen fit to direct that in misdemeanor cases the appeal must be perfected within 60 days after the date of judgment, and has vested the county judge with authority to extend 60 days' additional time in which this may be done. Counsel for appellant never applied to the county judge of Greer county for an order extending the time in which he might perfect his appeal, and no such order appears in the record. The court has no power to make such an order, except upon motion of counsel for a defendant. If counsel for a defendant sees fit to allow the time for perfecting an appeal to expire before applying for and securing an order extending such time, they have no one but themselves to blame. If after such time has expired, an attempted appeal will fail. We cannot do otherwise than sustain the motion of the Attorney General to dismiss this appeal, upon the ground that it was filed too late, and that this court has never acquired jurisdiction of the case. The appeal is therefore dismissed, with directions to the county court of Greer county to proceed with the execution of its judgment. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error was tried and convicted in the county court of Garvin county, at the January, 1911, term, on a charge of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquors, and on the 26th day of February was adjudged to pay a fine of $50 and be confined in the county jail for 30 days. The only logical conclusion that can be arrived at from the testimony in this case is that the liquor plaintiff in error was charged with having transported was an interstate shipment, and was not intended for any unlawful purpose. Under the doctrine of the Maynes Case, 119 Pac. 644, recently announced by this court, and not yet officially reported, this judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to be proceeded with according to law. LAMOREAUX v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Jan. 29, 1912.) Appeal from Oklahoma County Court; John W. Hayson, Judge. C. Lamoreaux was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Affirmed. D. B. Welty and John R. Guyer, for plaintiff in error. Smith C. Matson and E. G. Spilman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error was convicted at the April, 1911, term of the county court of Oklahoma county on a charge of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors with the intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed by the jury at a fine of $500 and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of six months. Finding no errors prejudicial to the substantial rights of the plaintiff in error, the judgment is affirmed. LINTON v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Jan. 23, 1912.) Appeal from Stephens County Court; W. H. Admire, Judge. W. W. Linton was convicted of violation of the prohibitory law, and appeals. Affirmed. Womack & Brown, for appellant. PER CURIAM. We find no material error in the record, and the verdict is amply sustained by the testimony. The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed. LUCKY et al., v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Jan. 23, 1912.) Appeal from Carter County Court; M. F. WinJohn Lucky and Bob Renegar frey, Judge. were convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeal. Affirmed. I. R. Mason, for Smith C. Matson and E. plaintiffs in error. G. Spilman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State. PER CURIAM. Plaintiffs in error were convicted at the January, 1911, term of the county court of Carter county on a charge of unlawfully keeping a place for the sale of intoxicating liquors, and were each sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and be imprisoned in the county jail for a period of 30 days. The appeal was properly perfected in this court on the 14th day of April, 1911. Upon a careful examination of the record, we find no errors prejudicial to the substantial rights of plaintiffs in error, and the judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed. MCGILL v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Feb. 3, 1912.) Appeal HYBERGER v. STATE. (Criminal Court from Superior Court. Logan County; S. S. of Appeals of Oklahoma. Jan. 23, 1912.) Ap- Lawrence, Judge. Wesley McGill was conpeal from Garvin County Court; W. B. Mc-victed of violating the prohibitory law, and |