Reese v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Reese v. State

199 S.W. 469, 82 Tex. Crim. 447, 1917 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 399

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 17, 1917

DocketNo. 4588.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 199 S.W. 469 (Reese 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

Reese v. State, 199 S.W. 469, 82 Tex. Crim. 447, 1917 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 399 (Tex. 1917).

Pincite

Opinions

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted for pursuing the business of selling intoxicants in local option territory, his punishment being assessed at two years confinement in the penitentiary.

The indictment charges three sales during the month of January. Two of these sales were proved; the other was seriously contested. These were made to different parties at different times. Such is the evidence for the. State. The only evidence as we understand this record, showing, or tending to show, the following of the business of selling intoxicating liquor, outside of the three sales, is found in the testimony of Davenport, who said he came with appellant in his wagon from the little town of Newsome, who had about a gallon of whisky which circumstances indicated he had gotten at the depot and was carrying home. He discovered it was whisky by reason of the fact that appellant opened the case that contained the whisky and took out one of the bottles, opened it and they took a drink. This whisky was seen in the wagon shortly before "the sales indicated by the State’s evidence. We are of opinion that this is not sufficient testimony to show that appellant was engaged in the business of selling intoxicants. There is no fact, or set of facts, as we understand the record, which shows that he had whisky at any other time or place, or undertook to sell any, or was in possession of any other than as indicated. We are of opinion this case is brought within the rule laid down in the cases of Thomas v. State, 65 Texas Crim. Rep., 537, 147 S. W. Rep., 262; Floyd v. State, 66 Texas Crim. Rep., 407, 147 S. W. Rep., 264; Whitehead v. State, 66 *448 Texas Crim. Rep., 482, 147 S. W. Rep., 583; Molthorp v. State, 66 Texas Crim. Rep., 543, 147 S. W. Rep., 1159; Oliver v. State, 69 Texas Crim. Rep., 263, 152 S. W. Rep., 1066.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted for pursuing the business of selling intoxicants in local option territory, his punishment being assessed at two years confinement in the penitentiary.

The indictment charges three sales during the month of January. Two of these sales were proved; the other was seriously contested. These were made to different parties at different times. Such is the evidence for the. State. The only evidence as we understand this record, showing, or tending to show, the following of the business of selling intoxicating liquor, outside of the three sales, is found in the testimony of Davenport, who said he came with appellant in his wagon from the little town of Newsome, who had about a gallon of whisky which circumstances indicated he had gotten at the depot and was carrying home. He discovered it was whisky by reason of the fact that appellant opened the case that contained the whisky and took out one of the bottles, opened it and they took a drink. This whisky was seen in the wagon shortly before "the sales indicated by the State’s evidence. We are of opinion that this is not sufficient testimony to show that appellant was engaged in the business of selling intoxicants. There is no fact, or set of facts, as we understand the record, which shows that he had whisky at any other time or place, or undertook to sell any, or was in possession of any other than as indicated. We are of opinion this case is brought within the rule laid down in the cases of Thomas v. State, 65 Texas Crim. Rep., 537, 147 S. W. Rep., 262; Floyd v. State, 66 Texas Crim. Rep., 407, 147 S. W. Rep., 264; Whitehead v. State, 66 *448 Texas Crim. Rep., 482, 147 S. W. Rep., 583; Molthorp v. State, 66 Texas Crim. Rep., 543, 147 S. W. Rep., 1159; Oliver v. State, 69 Texas Crim. Rep., 263, 152 S. W. Rep., 1066.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 S.W. 469, 82 Tex. Crim. 447, 1917 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reese-v-state-texcrimapp-1917.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack