Sullivan v. State

87 S.W. 150, 48 Tex. Crim. 201, 1905 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 145
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided May 3, 1905·No. No. 2999.·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judg.

The information charges generally that appellant sold to L. S. Ray intoxicating liquors, without specifying the character or kind, in violation of the local option law. The alleged purchaser testified, that he “bought two bottles of beer from him (appellant) and paid him 25 cents for the' same.” He further stated that he bought the beer for some women because they desired him to do so. These women were strangers to witness. Appellant’s contention that the evidence does not show a violation of the law, in that it fails *202 to establish that the beer bought was intoxicating liquor, is well taken. Before the local option law can be violated, there must be proof of a sale of intoxicating liquors.

The judgment is accordingly reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Sullivan v. State, 87 S.W. 150, 48 Tex. Crim. 201, 1905 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 145 (Tex. 1905).

87 S.W. 150 (Sullivan v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Johnson v. State
194 S.W. 143 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1917)
Moreno v. State
143 S.W. 150 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1911)
Potts v. State
97 S.W. 477 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1906)