Parish v. State
| Decision Date | 25 October 1905 |
| Citation | 89 S.W. 830 |
| Parties | PARISH v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Nacogdoches County Court; Robert Berger, Judge.
Bob Parish was convicted of violating the local option law, and he appeals. Reversed. See 82 S. W. 517.
Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This conviction is for violating the local option law; the penalty assessed being a fine of $75 and 50 days' confinement in the county jail.
The only question that requires consideration is the admission by the court, over appellant's objection of evidence to the effect that appellant received, during the month previous to the transaction in question, nine packages of whisky by express. Was this testimony admissible? It was not a part of the res gestæ of the transaction in question. It did not serve to show system in making the sales, nor did it serve to illustrate the intent of appellant. No question was made as to the receipt of the whisky by appellant, or that appellant received said whisky by express. Jasper Williams testified that about the 5th of April Mr. Stevens (a preacher) had been injured and wanted some whisky, and sent his son to him to see if he had any whisky; that at the time Williams thought he had a package of whisky in the express office, and got his foreman to excuse him at 5 o'clock, in order that he might go to the express office and get his package out, so he might accommodate the preacher who had been injured; that he inquired at the express office and learned the package had been taken out by another party of the same name; that he inquired of others if they knew where he could get some whisky, and, among others, of defendant, with whom he was well acquainted. Defendant replied that he did not think he had any whisky in the express office, and, if he did, he could not sell it; that he and defendant then went to the express office, and upon examination learned defendant did have two quarts of whisky in a C. O. D. package at the express office, with $2.50 charges due thereon; that he then told defendant he had to have one quart of the whisky for the preacher, and explained to him that the package he had in the office had been taken out by another Williams; that defendant then told him he could not sell him any whisky, and could not take out one quart, as both were in one package, and that he did not have the money to pay the charges on the package; that he then gave defendant $2.50 and told him to get the package, as he had to have one quart for Parson Stevens at once; that defendant went to the express office, got the package of whisky and brought it to him; that he opened the package and sent one of the quarts to Parson Stevens, and he (defendant) and some other boys drank up the other quart; that he had known defendant a long time, and knew he had been taking orders in Nacogdoches for C. B. Coats, who was in the saloon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southworth v. State
...any appellate court has had the matter before it. This court, in Myers v. State, 108 S. W. 392, in a measure overruled the Parish Case (Tex. Cr. App.) 89 S. W. 830, Harris v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 97 S. W. 704, and numerous others providing that other offenses can be introduced, or the fact......
-
Wagner v. State
...882, Henderson v. State, 91 S. W. 569, 15 Tex. Ct. Rep. 570, McKinley v. State, 106 S. W. 342, 20 Tex. Ct. Rep. 350, Parish v. State, 89 S. W. 830, 14 Tex. Ct. Rep. 10, and Baughman v. State, 90 S. W. 166, 14 Tex. Ct. Rep. 254. It was also stated, as if it was a matter of reproach, that the......
-
Starbeck v. State
...had been there for some time. It is claimed that this testimony was not admissible, and reliance is had on the cases of Parish v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 89 S. W. 830, Harris v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 98 S. W. 842, and O'Shennessey v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 96 S. W. 790. An inspection of the re......
-
Myers v. State
...have been made, about the middle of May this year. As appellant suggests, this testimony was held by this court in the cases of Parish v. State, 89 S. W. 830, Harris v. State, 97 S. W. 704, and Harris v. State, 100 S. W. 920, to be inadmissible for any purpose. As suggested in said opinions......