Chaves v. State
| Decision Date | 18 February 1925 |
| Docket Number | (No. 8650.) |
| Parties | CHAVES v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Reeves County; Chas. Gibbs, Judge.
Thomas Chaves was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
John B. Howard, of El Paso, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State's Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State's Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Reeves county of possessing intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.
The appeal bond is not signed by appellant. His name is signed thereto by his attorney of record. No attempt of any kind is made to show authority on the part of said attorney for such signature, even if it were permitted under article 321 of our C. C. P., which requires that such recognizance or bond shall be signed by the accused. This is also the effect of the decisions which are collated under said article in Mr. Vernon's C. C. P. See Chaney v. State, 23 Tex. 24; Ferrill v. State, 29 Tex. 489. We further observe that appellant was tried in December, 1923, and his bond is dated and approved in January, 1923. We also note that the description of the offense in said bond is insufficient. "Possession of 1 quart of liquor for sale" is not the equivalent for "possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale."
For the insufficiency of the bond, the appeal will be dismissed.
On Motion to Reinstate Appeal.
This case was dismissed at a former day of this term because of the fact that no sufficient recognizance or appeal bond appeared in the record. This defect has been removed, a sufficient bond has been filed, and the case will now be considered on its merits.
The state saw fit to charge in its indictment that appellant was in possession of "spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors capable of producing intoxication." To prove this allegation the state introduced testimony sufficient to show appellant in possession of certain bottles of tequila, and that tequila is intoxicating. We have carefully searched the record to see if there be any testimony that tequila is either a spirituous, vinous or malt liquor, and find not a word. The state of Texas maintains at its capital city a state chemist, whose duties require him to analyze, at no cost to prosecuting officers, liquors and matters of that kind sent to him for analysis. If tequila be either spirituous,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spencer v. State
...S.W.(2d) 379; Smith v. State, 107 Tex. Cr. R. 511, 298 S. W. 286; Cantu v. State, 101 Tex. Cr. R. 386, 276 S. W. 432; Chaves v. State, 101 Tex. Cr. R. 367, 275 S. W. 1006; Lloyd v. State, 103 Tex. Cr. R. 31, 279 S. W. 843. The opinion is expressed that proof that the car was driven upon the......
-
Fuller v. State, 14891.
...126 S. W. 598; Martin v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 38 S. W.(2d) 791; Knight v. State, 71 Tex. Cr. R. 36, 158 S. W. 543; Chaves v. State, 101 Tex. Cr. R. 367, 275 S. W. 1006. The other alleged errors complained of by the appellant are such as are not likely to occur on another trial of the case,......
-
Eubank v. State
...of "choc beer" or "tequila." See Briggs v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 280 S. W. 775; Henson et al. v. State, supra; Chaves v. State, 101 Tex. Civ. App. 367, 275 S. W. 1006. The cases of Revilla v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 280 S. W. 1064, and Tolar v. State, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 145, 260 S. W. 1043, are n......
-
Trammell v. State
...The point is now made that, there being no proof that alcohol was a spirituous liquor, the conviction must fall, citing Chaves v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 275 S. W. 1006, as supporting the contention. In that case we were dealing with "tequila"; here we are dealing with a liquor which has been......