Lieberman v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Lieberman v. State

189 S.W. 157, 1916 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 413

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 25, 1916

DocketNo. 4231

StatusPublished

This text of 189 S.W. 157 (Lieberman 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

Lieberman v. State, 189 S.W. 157, 1916 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 413 (Tex. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

PRENDERGAST, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors in quantities less than one gallon in nonprohibition territory without first having obtained a license as a retail liquor dealer to so sell. The complaint and information were in two distinct counts, each alleging the commission of the offense on the same day. In the first, the unlawful selling is alleged to one party, and in the second count to another party. The allegations in each [158]*158count follow the statute, and each is clearly sufficient. Winterman v. State, 179 S. W. 704; Trezevant v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. R. 172, 145 S. W. 1191.

This being a misdemeanor case, and each count alleging the same character of Offense, such pleading was clearly permissible, and the state was not bound to elect on which count conviction was sought.

There is no statement of facts nor any bills of exceptions in the record. There is nothing further that can be considered in the absence of a statement of facts and bills of exceptions.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

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

PRENDERGAST, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors in quantities less than one gallon in nonprohibition territory without first having obtained a license as a retail liquor dealer to so sell. The complaint and information were in two distinct counts, each alleging the commission of the offense on the same day. In the first, the unlawful selling is alleged to one party, and in the second count to another party. The allegations in each [158]*158count follow the statute, and each is clearly sufficient. Winterman v. State, 179 S. W. 704; Trezevant v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. R. 172, 145 S. W. 1191.

This being a misdemeanor case, and each count alleging the same character of Offense, such pleading was clearly permissible, and the state was not bound to elect on which count conviction was sought.

There is no statement of facts nor any bills of exceptions in the record. There is nothing further that can be considered in the absence of a statement of facts and bills of exceptions.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 S.W. 157, 1916 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lieberman-v-state-texcrimapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack