Williams v. State

238 S.W. 648
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Williams v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 88 Tex. Crim. 87
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided March 8, 1922·No. No. 6791·Published

Opinion

HAWKINS, J.

Appellant was convicted for having in his possession equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor. The prohibition law was so amended by the first and second called session of the Thirty-Seventh Legislature, chapter 61, p. 233, as to operate as a repeal of that portion of the statute which had theretofore made the possession of equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor an offense. Petit v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 235 S. W. 579; Francis v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 235 S. W. 580; Cox v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 234 S. W. 531; McCowan v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 234 S. W. 887; Betts v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 235 S. W. 597.

It becomes necessary therefore, under the provisions of article 16 of Vernon’s Penal Code, to reverse the judgment of the trial court and order a dismissal of the prosecution, which is accordingly done.

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

Williams v. State, 238 S.W. 648 (Tex. 1922).

238 S.W. 648 (Williams v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

U. S. Petit v. State
235 S.W. 579 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1921)
Betts and Tucker v. State
235 S.W. 597 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1921)