Perryman v. State
| Decision Date | 03 February 1915 |
| Docket Number | (No. 3406.) |
| Citation | 173 S.W. 1195 |
| Parties | PERRYMAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Titus County; H. F. O'Neal, Judge.
Homer Perryman was convicted of carrying intoxicating liquor into prohibition territory, and appeals. Affirmed.
T. C. Hutchings and Rolston & Rolston, all of Mt. Pleasant, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment in this case avers that the law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors had been put in full effect in Titus county in 1913, and that on or about May 30, 1914, in said county, appellant "did then and there unlawfully bring, transport, and carry, into said county, intoxicating liquors for one Ed Ervin, and did then and there deliver intoxicating liquors to said Ed Ervin, and did receive for transportation, carriage, and delivery to Ed Ervin, in said county, intoxicating liquors; said liquors being received by said Homer Perryman, in Dallas county, Tex., from some person or persons, who are to the grand jurors unknown." This indictment was preferred under Act Aug. 21, 1913, p. 62, of the First Called Session of the Thirty-Third Legislature.
The appellant made a motion to quash the indictment "because it charges no offense against the laws of this state." The indictment is clearly sufficient under the provisions of said act. While it is true the act specifies many things as exceptions which would not be unlawful in bringing, transporting, carrying, and delivering intoxicating liquors into prohibition territory, by section 12 it is specifically provided that it shall not be necessary, in any prosecution under said act, to negative the exceptions, but such exceptions shall be available to the defendant as purely defensive matters. Johnson v. State, 171 S. W. 211.
The evidence is amply sufficient to sustain the conviction. It shows, in effect, that said Ed Ervin was a minor 16 years of age; that he and several other persons gave appellant money to go to Dallas, get intoxicating liquors, bring it from there back into Titus county, and deliver it to them; that he did go to Dallas county, procured the liquor, carried it back into Titus county, and at the same time and place delivered part of it to said Ervin and other parts of it to the said several other persons. He himself testified that these several persons gave to him money to go to Dallas and get them intoxicating liquors, and that he did do so, and carried it back into Titus county; that, after he got back into Titus county with the liquor, he got with a companion, and they drank part of it themselves, and that he got drunk, and that, if he delivered any of the whisky to them, he did not know it, because he was drunk; that he made no profit out of the whisky, and what he did was an accommodation for said parties; that they paid his expenses, railroad fare, and hotel bills, in addition to giving him the money with which to buy the liquor.
By one bill it is shown that the court permitted over his objections, Birt Binnion to testify that on or about May 30, 1914, he gave appellant $3 in money to go to Dallas and get him some whisky; and by another that the court permitted Geo. Tosh to testify that on the same date he gave appellant $10 for the same purpose; and by another that he required appellant to testify that Fon Lee, said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex Parte Adams
...what is known as the Allison act, as construed by my Brethren in the recent cases of Johnson v. State, 171 S. W. 211, and Perryman v. State, 173 S. W. 1195. Of course, I did not agree to those opinions. If, as indicated, relator was carrying the intoxicating liquors found in his possession ......
- Schulman v. State