Haney v. State

• Decision Date: 27 October 1909
• Citation: 122 S.W. 34
• Parties: HANEY v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

122 S.W. 34

HANEY v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

October 27, 1909.

Appeal from Montague County Court; A. W. Ritchie, Judge.

Jim Haney was convicted of violating the local option law, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

F. J. McCord, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, P. J.

This is a conviction for violating the local option law. The state proved by a witness named Paul that appellant sold him some whisky. Appellant testified that he did not sell him any whisky, but sent his brother-in-law, Smith, a bottle of whisky by the witness Paul. Appellant kept a livery and feed stable. His brother-in-law Smith, kept a hotel, and the reason he sent whisky to his brother-in-law, he states, was that his brother-in-law had been kind to him, threw a good deal of trade to his livery stable, and was in a sickly condition and needed the whisky. This was practically the testimony.

On the morning before the trial that day appellant was coming to the county seat for the purpose of attending the trial, bringing his wife and children with him in a surrey. A man named Moody and the alleged purchaser, Paul, who was in a buggy with him, overtook appellant, who was walking alongside of his surrey in company with one or more of his children, the remainder of his family being in the surrey, when appellant halted them, and pulled Paul out of the buggy, and had a fight with him. This evidence was introduced by the state over appellant's protest and objection. We are of opinion this was error. It in no way tended to prove appellant had sold the whisky to Paul. It might indicate his outraged feelings that Paul was testifying against him under what he believed was false testimony; but it was a different transaction and different offense, which, as we understand, did not throw any light on this transaction, either as to motive or identity. Nor was it a part of the res gestæ. The sale of whisky, if it occurred, had long passed. Appellant had been arrested previously, and was en route to the court to stand his trial. We think this testimony was inadmissible, and, in view of other matter set up in other bills of exception, tended to bring about a higher punishment than the minimum; the fine in this case being $50 and 30 days' imprisonment. One of the bills recites the fact that there had been previous convictions in other cases against appellant, and that appellant had been placed in jail and suffered the punishment. It is also shown in the bills that on...