Barnes v. State
| Decision Date | 23 June 1905 |
| Citation | 88 S.W. 804 |
| Parties | BARNES v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Van Zandt County Court; Jno. W. Davidson, Judge.
Joe Barnes was convicted of violating the local option law, and appeals. Affirmed.
Yantis & Hubbard, C. H. Reese, and Jno. S. Spinks, for appellant. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law; his punishment being fixed at a fine of $25, and 20 days' confinement in the county jail.
The facts of the case show that Tom Hill owned a still in Van Zandt county, and that Joe Barnes was working for said Hill. Berry Smith (prosecutor) carried some peaches to the still, and Joe Barnes, as an employé of Tom Hill, delivered to Smith a jug of brandy; Smith at the time paying $1.10, the revenue license. This was after the peaches had been manufactured into brandy—in other words, advanced him peaches in exchange for his brandy. The court charged the jury that the exchange of peaches for liquor would constitute a sale. This charge is correct. See Parker v. State, 77 S. W. 783, 8 Tex. Ct. Rep. 865; Stanley v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 64 S. W. 1051. Certainly the payment by Smith of the revenue license to the defendant would within itself constitute a sale of the brandy, since the brandy was delivered as part consideration for the revenue license paid and peaches furnished. Nor does the fact that defendant has no interest in the manufactured brandy present any defense for the sale of the same. He was certainly equally guilty with his principal, Hill, in the sale of the brandy. No error appears in this record, and the judgment is affirmed.
The Parker Case has absolutely no bearing on the question here involved. The Stanley Case was decided on a question of exchange, where fruit was traded for brandy. Here the party received only his half of the brandy out of his own peaches, paying the owner of the still the other half for his services and labor in making the brandy. Hill owned the still, and the other party owned the peaches. It was more nearly related to partnership on the results, and not a sale. Appellant was only an employé of the owner of the still, and assisted in delivering the owner of the peaches his half of the brandy.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coleman v. State
...97 S. W. 95, Treadaway v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. App. 466, 62 S. W. 574, Stanley v. State, 43 Tex. Cr. App. 270, 64 S. W. 1051, and Barnes v. State, 88 S. W. 804. We think the charge of the court is, as suggested, Appellant insists the court erred in permitting, over his objection, the witness ......
-
Hardwick v. American Can Co.
... ... In ... order to a proper understanding of the second defense, it is ... necessary that we should state the facts found in respect ... thereof by the Court of Chancery Appeals ... That ... court finds that the defendant, American ... ...
-
Morris v. State
...v. State, 97 S. W. 95; Treadway v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 466, 62 S. W. 574; Stanley v. State, 43 Tex. Cr. R. 270, 64 S. W. 1051; Barnes v. State, 88 S. W. 804; Coleman v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 578, 111 S. W. 1011; Wilson v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. R. 13, 111 S. W. 1018; Beckham v. State, 54 Tex.......
-
Young v. State
...38 S. W. 522; Stanley v. State, 43 Tex. Cr. R. 270, 64 S. W. 1051; Morris v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. R. 498, 142 S. W. 876; Barnes v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 88 S. W. 804; Taggart v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 97 S. W. 95; Sparks v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 99 S. W. 546; Howard v. State, 72 Tex. Cr. R. 62......