Davis v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Davis v. State

124 S.W. 635, 57 Tex. Crim. 638, 1910 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 627

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 12, 1910

DocketNo. 89.

StatusPublished

This text of 124 S.W. 635 (Davis v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. State, 124 S.W. 635, 57 Tex. Crim. 638, 1910 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 627 (Tex. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

This conviction was for violating the local option law.

Two of the questions suggested in the motion for new trial are the same as in causes Nos. 82 and 83 this day decided. An additional ground is relied upon, to wit: that the evidence is not sufficient to justify the conviction. The facts introduced on the part of the State was through the witnesses Roberts and Gholston. Roberts testified that Gholston gave him $1 with which to buy some *639 whisky; that he took the dollar and went to appellant’s barbershop, in Alvord, Wise County, and bought a pint of whisky, for which he paid him fifty cents; that appellant went into his bathroom, connected with the barbershop, and got the pint of whisky and delivered it to the witness. Gholston testified to giving witness Eoberts the dollar with which to purchase a bottle of whisky and that Eoberts brought it back to him and they drank it. We think this testimony is sufficient to make out a case and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

McCord, Judge, not sitting.

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

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

This conviction was for violating the local option law.

Two of the questions suggested in the motion for new trial are the same as in causes Nos. 82 and 83 this day decided. An additional ground is relied upon, to wit: that the evidence is not sufficient to justify the conviction. The facts introduced on the part of the State was through the witnesses Roberts and Gholston. Roberts testified that Gholston gave him $1 with which to buy some *639 whisky; that he took the dollar and went to appellant’s barbershop, in Alvord, Wise County, and bought a pint of whisky, for which he paid him fifty cents; that appellant went into his bathroom, connected with the barbershop, and got the pint of whisky and delivered it to the witness. Gholston testified to giving witness Eoberts the dollar with which to purchase a bottle of whisky and that Eoberts brought it back to him and they drank it. We think this testimony is sufficient to make out a case and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

McCord, Judge, not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 S.W. 635, 57 Tex. Crim. 638, 1910 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-state-texcrimapp-1910.