Cox v. State
| Decision Date | 09 November 1921 |
| Docket Number | (No. 6423.) |
| Parties | COX v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Shelby County; Chas. L. Brachfield, Judge.
Frank Cox was convicted of possessing equipment for making intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Reversed, and case ordered dismissed.
D. R. Taylor and Sanders & Sanders, all of Center, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Shelby county of possessing equipment for making intoxicating liquor. But one question will be noticed.
Under section 1 of the Dean Law it was made penal to possess equipment for making spirituous, vinous, or malt liquor, or other intoxicant, and the prosecution and conviction herein was under said section 1. Said sections 1 and 2 were amended by what is chapter 61, Acts First Called Session, 37th Legislature. An examination of said amended statutes discloses that possession of such equipment is not enumerated in the forbidden acts. This constitutes a repeal of the law under which appellant was convicted, and under our statutes and all of our decisions we have no option but to direct that this case be reversed and dismissed. Article 16, Vernon's P. C.; Holden v. State, 1 Tex. App. 225; Harold v. State, 16 Tex. App. 157; State v. Andrews, 20 Tex. 230; Chambers v. State, 25 Tex. 307.
The cause will be reversed and ordered dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vandyke v. State
...a defendant to petition the sentencing court to re-sentence him under newly enacted punishment ranges).50 See, e.g., Cox v. State , 90 Tex.Crim. 256, 234 S.W. 531 (1921) (noting that a statutory amendment removing the act of possessing equipment for making intoxicating liquor from the forbi......
-
State v. Brown
...Tex. Cr. R. 399, 235 S. W. 580; Ex parte Mitchum, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 62, 237 S. W. 936. The last two cases are bottomed on Cox v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 256, 234 S. W. 531, which case is bottomed on Holden v. State, 1 Tex. App. 225;Harold v. State, 16 Tex. App. 157;Chambers v. State, 25 Tex. 307......
-
Ex Parte Mitchum, (No. 6772.)
...not for "medicinal, mechanical, scientific, or sacramental purposes." This construction, we understand, is supported by authority. Cox v. State, 234 S. W. 531; Ruling Case Law, vol. 25, p. 173; Williams v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 371, 107 S. W. 1121, and other cases cited in Michie's Encyclop......
-
Jordan v. State
...as it made the possession of equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor a crime. See Vernon's Ann. P. C. art. 16; 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; Harris v. State (Tex. Cr. App......