Hail v. State
Opinion
was prosecuted in the county court, under an indictment charging him with pursuing the occupation of selling malt liquors without having procured a license. The occupation being taxed $50 by the State and $25 by the county. The record shows that if the occupation was followed at all, it was in a precinct where local option prevailed. There is no statute authorizing a license for the occupation of selling malt liquors in a local option precinct. The license is for selling intoxicating liquors in a local option district, and the .State tax thereon is not less than $200. It follows, therefore, that appellant was not prosecuted for any offense known to the law. The judgment is accordingly reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
Reversed and dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
85 S.W. 14 (Hail v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.