Lott v. State
| Decision Date | 02 May 1923 |
| Docket Number | (No. 7237.) |
| Parties | LOTT v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Webb County; J. F. Mullally, Judge.
George Lott was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor and he appeals. Affirmed.
John A. Pope and Raymond & Pope, of Laredo, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Webb county of the offense of transporting intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.
There is no dispute of the fact that, about the date alleged in the indictment, appellant was accosted and arrested by some officers while driving a car along a public road in Webb county. Upon search it was discovered that in said car were 199 bottles of tequila, which was shown by testimony to be an intoxicating, spirituous liquor. The only defense interposed by appellant was that he met a man by the name of Sanchez, who asked him if he would take this liquor and carry it down the road and leave it at a certain designated point beyond the town of Encinal, and he was transporting it in pursuance of said agreement, and that he had no financial interest in the transaction whatever. Most of the questions that are raised by appellant's brief and record have been disposed of by us in our opinions in other cases involving substantially the same questions.
By his bill of exceptions No. 1 appellant presents the proposition that the Dean Law (Vernon's Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588¼ et seq.), by which name the law of this state forbidding the manufacture, transportation, etc., of intoxicating liquor is commonly called, is in conflict with the Volstead Act of our national Congress (41 Stat. 305). We discuss this no further than to say that it has been settled against appellant in the case of Ex parte Gilmore, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 529, 228 S. W. 199.
Appellant complains by his bills of exception Nos. 2, 3, and 4 of the admission of the testimony of the officers who arrested him and searched his car, upon the ground that they had no search warrant, and such testimony was illegally obtained and admitted. We have settled these contentions against him in the case of Welchek v. State, (Tex. Cr. App.) 247 S. W. 524.
By his bills of exception Nos. 5, 6, and 7 appellant raises the question in various ways that the transportation, to be sufficiently charged and to be a violation of the law, must be alleged and proven to have been for the purpose of sale. The cases of Stringer v. State; 92 Tex. Cr. R. 46, 241 S. W. 159, and Crowley v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 103, 242 S. W. 472, are decisive of these questions against appellant's contention.
The testimony in the record showing beyond dispute that appellant was over the age of 25 years at the time of the commission of the alleged offense, it was not erroneous for the trial court to decline to submit to the jury his right to the benefit of the suspended sentence law. Davis v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 246 S. W. 395; Robinson v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 527, 244 S. W. 599.
The evidence fully supporting the proposition that appellant was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rowley
...v. State, 106 Ohio St. 442 (140 N.E. 370); People v. Vulge, (Mich.) 194 N.W. 582; Jones v. State, (Ala. App.) 96 So. 721; Lott v. State, (Tex.) 251 S.W. 1070; State Prescott, (S. C.) 117 S.E. 637; State v. Green, (S. C.) 114 S.E. 317; Georgis v. State, (Neb.) 193 N.W. 713; Billings v. State......
-
State v. Rowley
...396;Rosanski v. State (Ohio) 140 N. E. 370;People v. Vulge (Mich) 194 N. W. 582;Jones v. State (Ala. App.) 96 South. 721;Lott v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 251 S. W. 1070;State v. Prescott (S. C.) 117 S. E. 637;State v. Green (S. C.) 114 S. E. 317;Georgis v. State (Neb.) 193 N. W. 713;Billings v......
-
Taylor v. State
...purposes (Evans v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 646, 241 S. W. 148; Harris v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 349, 248 S. W. 56; Lott v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 630, 251 S. W. 1070), still, that burden must be held discharged when the evidence raises in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt on the We think......
-
Copello v. State
...upon his trial some testimony to the effect that the conveyance of the liquor was for some purpose permitted by law. See Lott v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 251 S. W. 1070; Robert v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 133, 234 S. W. The indictment contains two counts, namely: That appellant unlawfully transpo......