Frickie v. State
| Decision Date | 11 May 1898 |
| Citation | 45 S.W. 810 |
| Parties | FRICKIE v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from county court, Bosque county; W. B. Thompson, Judge.
Louie Frickie was convicted of violating the local option law, and he appeals. Reversed.
Word, Dillard & Word, for appellant. W. W. Walling and Mann Trice, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law, and prosecutes this appeal.
Appellant assigns a number of errors, but only one requires to be noticed. This involves the question whether or not the court erred in instructing the jury that local option was in force in Bosque county from and after the 24th of July, 1895. The question made by appellant was as to whether or not by the proof made on his part he put in issue the question of posting the five notices required by law of the order of the court authorizing said election. The proof on this point was substantially as follows: C. W. Tidwell, clerk of the county court, was introduced on behalf of the state, and testified he made out five certified copies of the judgment of the commissioners' court ordering the election for local option in 1895, and turned them over to some member of the sheriff's department, either to Sheriff Metcalf or to his deputy, Boyd. Said certified copies, which were to serve as notices for said election, were typewritten. He did not post them up, or cause them to be posted up, unless the sheriff or his deputy posted them. He further stated that he thought, but would not be positive, that he saw one of said notices posted at the court house; that he did not think, but would not be positive, that he turned them over to the Prohibition campaign committee to post. Metcalf, the sheriff, testified that he was sheriff during the year 1895, and that he never posted in person any local option election notices in that year; that W. A. Boyd was his principal deputy; that he had no recollection of ever seeing any of the notices for local option election held in 1895 posted; that he knew he did not post them himself, and did not think they were posted. W. A. Boyd testified that he had no recollection of the county clerk turning over to him any local option election notices for the year 1895, and had no recollection of posting or causing them to be posted by any one; that if he had posted them he would have remembered it, and he therefore knew he did not post any of said notices; that he saw one of said notices posted at Clifton, in Bosque county, and another of said notices posted on bulletin board at Meridian. These were the only notices he had any remembrance of having seen posted. A. J. Cooper testified that he resided at Morgan, in Bosque county; that he belonged to the local option campaign committee, and had something to do with posting the notices of said election; that his understanding was that all the notices required by law for said election were posted up; that he posted one of said notices at the post office at Morgan in person; that he did not know how he received said notice; that he gave one notice to his son to post up at Walnut, in said county, but he did not know whether his son posted said notice or not; that there were six local option elections held in the Morgan precinct in the last five or six years, but he thought the copies referred to by him were for the county at large. He also thought that said notices were written in ink, and were not typewritten, but they might have been typewritten. J. L. Ownby testified that he lived three miles from Walnut, and was county commissioner for Bosque county for two terms, and was commissioner in 1895; that his recollection was that he saw one of said notices posted up at Walnut in 1895; that he could not say positively that it was a notice of election for the county; that he thought it was. W. B. Thompson said that he was county judge; that he did not issue or cause to be sent out to the 21 voting precincts of the county general election notices of the local option election held in Bosque county in 1895, as provided in article 1728, Rev. Civ. St. 1895. This was substantially all the proof on the question.
In Shields v. State, 42 S. W. 398, which was a case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slack v. State
...35 S. W. 383; Perkins v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 429, 31 S. W. 175; Shields v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 252, 42 S. W. 398; Frickie v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 255, 45 S. W. 810; Barker v. State, 47 S. W. 980; Racer v. State, 73 S. W. 968; Zollicoffer v. State, 38 S. W. 775; Loveless v. State, 49 S.......
-
Chenowith v. State
...invalid. Ex parte Conley, supra; Smith v. State, 19 Tex. App. 444; Swenson v. McLaren (Tex. Civ. App.) 21 S. W. 300; Frickie v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 45 S. W. 810; Bowman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 40 S. W. 798; Bowman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 41 S. W. 635; James v. State, 21 Tex. App. 353, 1......
-
Green v. State
...v. State, 38 S. W. 775; Loveless v. State, 49 S. W. 601; Shields v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 252, 42 S. W. 398; Frickie v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 255, 45 S. W. 810. The other ground of the motion to quash is because it is claimed "the indictment does not show that the alleged sale of such liquo......
-
Ex Parte Conley
...of the local option law. See, also, Smith v. State, 19 Tex. App. 444; Swenson v. McLaren (Tex. Cr. App.) 21 S. W. 300; Frickie v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 45 S. W. 810; Bowman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 40 S. W. 798; Bowman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 41 S. W. 635; James v. State, 21 Tex. App. 353,......