Prince v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Prince v. State

246 S.W.2d 207, 157 Tex. Crim. 47, 1952 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1659

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 20, 1952

DocketNo. 25716

StatusPublished

This text of 246 S.W.2d 207 (Prince 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

Prince v. State, 246 S.W.2d 207, 157 Tex. Crim. 47, 1952 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1659 (Tex. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for the sale of beer in a dry area, to-wit, Taylor County, Texas, and assessed a fine of $500.00 and one year in jail.

The complaint and information in the case properly present the issue of the dry status of Taylor County. In the progress of the trial defendant declined to waive proof and admit the dry status of the county. The county attorney twice brought up the question of proof and eventually he called the county clerk and had certain records of the commissioners’ court identified and they were referred to as petition, election returns, etc. These do not appear in the statement of facts and there is no proof supporting the court’s charge to the jury that it is a dry county.

For this reason the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for the sale of beer in a dry area, to-wit, Taylor County, Texas, and assessed a fine of $500.00 and one year in jail.

The complaint and information in the case properly present the issue of the dry status of Taylor County. In the progress of the trial defendant declined to waive proof and admit the dry status of the county. The county attorney twice brought up the question of proof and eventually he called the county clerk and had certain records of the commissioners’ court identified and they were referred to as petition, election returns, etc. These do not appear in the statement of facts and there is no proof supporting the court’s charge to the jury that it is a dry county.

For this reason the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 S.W.2d 207, 157 Tex. Crim. 47, 1952 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prince-v-state-texcrimapp-1952.