Meroney v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Meroney v. State

92 S.W. 844, 49 Tex. Crim. 337, 1906 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 78

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 14, 1906

DocketNo. 3588.

StatusPublished

This text of 92 S.W. 844 (Meroney 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

Meroney v. State, 92 S.W. 844, 49 Tex. Crim. 337, 1906 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 78 (Tex. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

*338 BROOKS, Judge.

This conviction was for violating the occupation tax law, in not procuring license to pursue the occupation of a retail liquor dealer, the punishment being fixed at a fine of $450, the amount of the State and county tax. The facts shows conclusively that appellant was pursuing the occupation of selling spirituous, vinous and malt liquors, without a license, at the time of the alleged offense, as charged in the indictment. It is further shown that he had not paid his liquor-license-tax: as required by law. Appellant’s defense was that he believed other parties liad paid his tax, and secured a license for him to pursue this occupation. The court in his charge submitted the issue of mistake of fact to the jury. However, we do not believe this defense could be urged here: but at all events, appellant secured the benefit of it. The fact that he made arrangements with a wholesale liquor dealer to pay his tax, which had not been paid, would not absolve appellant from a prosecution, if he pursued said occupation without paying said tax. The statutes of this State require that after the tax is paid, the license must be posted in a conspicuous place in. the house. The statute authorizing prosecutions for failing to pay the tax, authorized appellant to have the prosecution dismissed upon the payment of the tax. Hone of these facts appear in this record. Ho error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

*338 BROOKS, Judge.

This conviction was for violating the occupation tax law, in not procuring license to pursue the occupation of a retail liquor dealer, the punishment being fixed at a fine of $450, the amount of the State and county tax. The facts shows conclusively that appellant was pursuing the occupation of selling spirituous, vinous and malt liquors, without a license, at the time of the alleged offense, as charged in the indictment. It is further shown that he had not paid his liquor-license-tax: as required by law. Appellant’s defense was that he believed other parties liad paid his tax, and secured a license for him to pursue this occupation. The court in his charge submitted the issue of mistake of fact to the jury. However, we do not believe this defense could be urged here: but at all events, appellant secured the benefit of it. The fact that he made arrangements with a wholesale liquor dealer to pay his tax, which had not been paid, would not absolve appellant from a prosecution, if he pursued said occupation without paying said tax. The statutes of this State require that after the tax is paid, the license must be posted in a conspicuous place in. the house. The statute authorizing prosecutions for failing to pay the tax, authorized appellant to have the prosecution dismissed upon the payment of the tax. Hone of these facts appear in this record. Ho error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.W. 844, 49 Tex. Crim. 337, 1906 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meroney-v-state-texcrimapp-1906.