Bearden v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Bearden v. State

89 S.W.2d 1004, 1936 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 778

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Bearden v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 132 Tex. Crim. 39 →

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided January 15, 1936·No. No. 17835·Published

Opinion

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for selling intoxicating liquor; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.

The law (Pen.Code 1925, art. 666 et seq., as amended) under which this prosecution was conducted has been repealed (Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 666 — 49) and no saving clause appears in the repealing statute taking care of pending prosecutions. We have no alternative except to obey the mandate of our statute, and the judgment will be reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed following Meadows v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 88 S.W.(2d) 481, opinion handed down November 27, 1935.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for selling intoxicating liquor; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.

The law (Pen.Code 1925, art. 666 et seq., as amended) under which this prosecution was conducted has been repealed (Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 666 — 49) and no saving clause appears in the repealing statute taking care of pending prosecutions. We have no alternative except to obey the mandate of our statute, and the judgment will be reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed following Meadows v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 88 S.W.(2d) 481, opinion handed down November 27, 1935.

Bearden v. State, 89 S.W.2d 1004, 1936 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 778 (Tex. 1936).

Pincite

89 S.W.2d 1004 (Bearden v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related