White v. State

217 S.W. 389, 86 Tex. Crim. 420, 1919 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 453
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided December 10, 1919·No. No. 5560.·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinions

LATTIMORE, Judge.

—Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Smith County, of violating the local option law, and given a penalty of five years in the penitentiary.

The case is before uS without a statement of facts or hills of exception; and in such case the only matters for our determination, are the sufficiency of the indictment and the charge of the court. We have examined both, and conclude that the indictment correctly charges that appellant engaged in the business and occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in territory in which such sales had been forbidden by a vote of the people, it being alleged, in addition to the general charge, that appellant made a number of distinct sales of such liquor.

The charge of the court is in conformity with the law, and finding no error, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

White v. State, 217 S.W. 389, 86 Tex. Crim. 420, 1919 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 453 (Tex. 1919).

217 S.W. 389 (White v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Romines v. State
717 S.W.2d 745 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1986)
McManners v. State
592 S.W.2d 622 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1980)
Clark v. State
590 S.W.2d 512 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1979)
Mason v. State
272 S.W.2d 527 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1954)
Stovall v. State
16 S.W.2d 242 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1929)
Pruitt v. State
265 S.W. 695 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1924)
Guynes v. State
260 S.W. 193 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1924)
Archie v. State
237 S.W. 257 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1922)