McDonald v. State, (No. 8156.)

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Writing for the CourtMorrow
Citation260 S.W. 850
PartiesMcDONALD v. STATE.
Decision Date02 April 1924
Docket Number(No. 8156.)
260 S.W. 850
McDONALD
v.
STATE.
(No. 8156.)
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 2, 1924.

Appeal from District Court; Harrison County; P. O. Beard, Judge.

J. P. McDonald was convicted of unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, and appeals. Affirmed.

H. T. Lyttleton and John Jasper, both of Marshall, for appellant.

Tom Garrard, State's Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State's Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, P. J.


The offense is the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of one year.

According to the state's evidence, the witness Collins went to the home of Artie Jackson to buy some whisky. Jackson was not found, but the appellant and several others were there. The witness approached McDonald with reference to procuring whisky. McDonald said he had none, but could take the witness to where it could be obtained. Collins, Jackson, and another person whom Collins did not know went to the home of Archbell, about three blocks distant. The stranger knocked upon the door, and Archbell appeared. McDonald, Archbell, and the stranger had a conversation which was not heard by the witness. Archbell went out the back door, and from under a woodpile produced a pint of whisky which he handed to McDonald. Collins had previously given McDonald $2, the price of a pint of whisky, and requested him to procure it for him. Collins was acting as a detective, and the officers who employed him testified to facts corroborative of his evidence.

According to the appellant, he and a boy named English were together when Collins appeared at the home of Jackson and wanted to buy whisky. McDonald said that he knew of no whisky which could be bought. English said that he thought he could obtain a pint, the amount which Collins wanted, and the three went to the home of Archbell. Collins shoved some money into the hands of McDonald, who walked on the front porch and knocked on the door. Some one from the inside answered that he was sick. Appellant then walked back and returned the money to Collins. English requested that the money be given to him, and after receiving it, he walked away and later returned with a pint of whisky which he delivered to Collins. Appellant specifically denied that he got the whisky or had any interest in the sale or any arrangements with Archbell with reference to the sale of whisky, but that he wanted a drink, and Collins gave him one from the bottle which he had purchased.

Appellant sought to have his case continued. It is stated in his motion that 21 of the veniremen were selected by the jury commissioners. The court instructed the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • State v. Brinkley, No. 39557.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 11, 1946
    ...legitimate purposes was reversible error. State v. Shiles, 188 S.W. (2d) 7; Morgan v. Durfee, 69 Mo. 469; State v. Rennison, 306 Mo. 483, 260 S.W. 850. (20) In some respects, the right to defend property or a dwelling is "Superior" to that of self-defense, because there never can ......
  • Lenox v. State, No. 22053.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • April 8, 1942
    ...objected. In the absence of any such showing, the question, therefore, is not deemed before us. McDonald v. State, 97 Tex.Cr. R. 200, 260 S.W. 850. By bill of exception, complaint is made of the action of the trial court in permitting the State, after having rested its case, and after the a......
  • Stiles v. State, No. 22957.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • November 15, 1944
    ...wholly fails to show if any of the jurors who were present served on the jury that tried appellant. McDonald v. State, 97 Tex.Cr. R. 200, 260 S.W. 850; Lenox v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 226, 161 S.W.2d Neither does appellant show that any objectionable juror was forced upon him if the jury was ......
3 cases
  • State v. Brinkley, No. 39557.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 11, 1946
    ...legitimate purposes was reversible error. State v. Shiles, 188 S.W. (2d) 7; Morgan v. Durfee, 69 Mo. 469; State v. Rennison, 306 Mo. 483, 260 S.W. 850. (20) In some respects, the right to defend property or a dwelling is "Superior" to that of self-defense, because there never can ......
  • Lenox v. State, No. 22053.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • April 8, 1942
    ...objected. In the absence of any such showing, the question, therefore, is not deemed before us. McDonald v. State, 97 Tex.Cr. R. 200, 260 S.W. 850. By bill of exception, complaint is made of the action of the trial court in permitting the State, after having rested its case, and after the a......
  • Stiles v. State, No. 22957.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • November 15, 1944
    ...wholly fails to show if any of the jurors who were present served on the jury that tried appellant. McDonald v. State, 97 Tex.Cr. R. 200, 260 S.W. 850; Lenox v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 226, 161 S.W.2d Neither does appellant show that any objectionable juror was forced upon him if the jury was ......

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