Douthitt v. State
| Decision Date | 21 February 1901 |
| Citation | 61 S.W. 404 |
| Parties | DOUTHITT v. STATE.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Somervell county court; J. G. Adams, Judge.
A. L. Douthitt was convicted for violating the local option law, and appeals. Affirmed.
D. E. Simmons, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted for violating the local option law, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $100 and 20 days' imprisonment in the county jail.
There is no statement of facts in the record. We have carefully inspected the indictment, and do not think the court erred in overruling the motion to quash the same. While the indictment does state "that an election was held to determine whether or not the sale of intoxicating liquors should be prohibited in said county in justice precinct No. 1 thereof, and in the following subdivision of said precinct, to wit," this is not duplicitous because it charges that the election was held both for the precinct and the subdivision thereof. It does not do so. It merely alleges that the subdivision was a portion of the justice precinct. The indictment was good in other respects, the venue being properly laid in the subdivision or school district.
We cannot review the exceptions reserved in the motion for new trial to the refusal of the court to give certain requested instructions and the action of the court in giving certain instructions. We must assume that there was no question as to the legality of the election for local option, and that this was not controverted; and, consequently, the court properly instructed that local option had carried in said school district on the day mentioned.
The court properly instructed the jury that whisky was an intoxicating liquor.
The requested charge with reference to Douthitt merely acting as the agent of Lanham cannot be reviewed in the absence of the statement of facts, inasmuch as we cannot determine that same was authorized. Nor are we able to determine, in the absence of a bill of exceptions, as to whether or not counsel for state used improper and prejudicial remarks to the jury. However, we note, in the charge of the court, that the jury were instructed to disregard certain remarks attributed to the state's counsel, and, for aught that appears, this was entirely proper, and cured any possible error that may have occurred in that respect. No error appearing in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
1. Rehearing denied March 20, 1901.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moreno v. State
...intoxicating liquor, because the courts take judicial knowledge of the fact that whisky is an intoxicating liquor." See, also, Douthitt v. State, 61 S. W. 404; Sebastian v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 510, 72 S. W. 849; Wilcoxson v. State, 91 S. W. In Maier v. State, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 300, 21 S. W......
-
Johnson v. State
...is an intoxicating liquor. Rucker v. State, 24 S. W. 902; Parker v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 262; Aston v. State, 49 S. W. 385; Douthitt v. State, 61 S. W. 404; Sebastian v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. R. 510, 72 S. W. 849; Rutherford v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 22, 90 S. W. 172; Wilcoxson v. State, 91 S.......
-
Billing v. State
...R. 40, 250 S. W. 174; Cotton v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 391, 250 S. W. 1026; Aston v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 49 S. W. 385; Douthitt v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 61 S. W. 404. A charge on circumstantial evidence was not required in this case. Appellant was admittedly transporting liquor in his own ......
- Jackson v. State