Harris v. State

Decision Date14 November 1906
PartiesHARRIS v. STATE.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Appeal from Titus County Court; Seb F. Caldwell, Judge.

Dud Harris was convicted of violating the local option law, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Rolston Ward, for appellant. J. E. Yantis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, P. J.

This is a local option case; the punishment being fixed at 20 days in jail and a fine of $75.

There were two theories presented: One, that appellant sold the whisky to the alleged purchaser, J. S. Wofford; and the other, raised by defendant's testimony, to the effect that he had ordered the whisky from the Paris Liquor Company, at Paris, for Wofford. If appellant was correct, he was not guilty; while, under the state's theory, if correct, he was. In other words, there was a direct issue of a sale to J. S. Wofford by appellant, as against his theory that he ordered the whisky in such manner as to make the sale from the Paris Liquor Company, at Paris, to Wofford. There was quite a mass of testimony introduced in regard to the fact that appellant had provided himself with order blanks in Paris and was the agent of the Paris Liquor Company, and conversations that should have occurred between himself and the other witnesses that we believe were practically immaterial in this case and unnecessarily incumber the record with a great deal of irrelevant and immaterial testimony. If the state's case was correct, there was a straight sale, without equivocation or any extraneous matters entering into it. There was no system in regard to the matter. It was simply a plain, straight sale. The other matters were wholly immaterial. If appellant's theory was right and was the correct one, then he ordered the whisky by means of the signature to the order for the purchaser, Wofford. While we think much of this testimony was immaterial, it was not hurtful. But upon another trial we suggest that the case be tried upon the pertinent issues.

There is one bill of exceptions reserved which we think is fatal to the conviction. The state introduced the witness Garrett, and proved by him that during the year 1905 he had ordered quite a lot of whisky for defendant and others, amounting to 50 or 100 bottles. This whisky was ordered through the witness Garrett, as the agent of Swope & Mangold, at Dallas, and the year previous to the sale alleged in this case. This testimony, under Parish v. State, 89 S. W. 830, 14 Tex. Ct. Rep. 10, was clearly...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Miller v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • December 15, 1915
    ...Rep. 694; Id., 47 Tex. Cr. R. 312, 83 S. W. 690, 122 Am. St. Rep. 694]; Bell v. State, 56 S. W. 913; Harris v. State ; Harris v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 411 [97 S. W. 704; Id., 50 Tex. Cr. R. 411, 97 S. W. 704; Powell v. State], 70 S. W. 218; [Bearden v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. R. 144, 79 S. W. 37......
  • State v. Lowry
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • February 27, 1923
    ......Neal, 10 Iowa. 560; Schohmer v. Lynch, 11 Iowa 461; Peck v. Hendershot, 14 Iowa 40; Starry v. Starry, 21. Iowa 254; Dickey v. Maine Tel. Co., 46 Me. 483;. Mahiat v. Codde, 64 N.W. 194; Botse v. Burt, 34 Mo. 74; Schuchman v. Heath, 38 Mo. 280; In Re Simmonds, 19 P. St. (7 Harris) 439;. International v. Johnson, 24 S.W. 939; Galveston. v. Herring, 24 S.W. 939; O'Connor v. Kock,. 29 S.W. 400;) nor was exception taken to the rule of the. court in permitting witness S. A. Knight to testify as to. other sales, and this point cannot be reviewed. (Atchinson v. Arnold, 11 ......
  • Staples v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • March 3, 1915
    ...36 Tex. Cr. R. 606, 38 S. W. 204; Taylor v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 570, 55 S. W. 961; Ford v. State, 56 S. W. 918; Harris v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 411, 97 S. W. 704; Parks v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 569, 123 S. W. We do not think this question is raised in the record in a way to authorize us t......
  • Smith v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • October 14, 1908
    ...Am. St. Rep. 694; Bell v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 56 S. W. 913; Harris v. State, 98 S. W. 842, 17 Tex. Ct. Rep. 815; Harris v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 411, 97 S. W. 704, 17 Tex. Ct. R. 270; Powell v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 70 S. W. 218; Bearden v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. R. 144, 79 S. W. 37, 9 Tex. C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT