Pugh v. State
| Decision Date | 10 March 1909 |
| Citation | 117 S.W. 817 |
| Parties | PUGH v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Stephens County Court; A. J. Power, Judge.
Jesse Pugh was convicted of being drunk at a public place, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
W. P. Sebastian, for appellant. F. J. McCord, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of being drunk in a public place. The facts, without dispute, show that, if appellant was drunk, it was at the private residence of Charley Knox. The facts further show, without dispute, that Knox resided about five miles east of the town of Breckenridge; that on the night of the 1st of February, 1907, Knox and his wife gave an entertainment to a few friends, and only to those who were invited. It was an exclusive affair, and confined only to those invited. Among the families invited were those of Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Pugh, father of appellant. These guests met at the residence of Knox, as before stated, at the invitation of Knox and wife; and Knox and wife did not, on this or any other occasion, throw open the doors of their residence for public entertainment of any sort, and it was not a place where such entertainments were given, nor where people commonly resorted for the purpose of recreation, entertainment, or amusement, and had never been. This is the testimony of Knox and wife. They further stated that they had never given any social entertainment, except on one occasion, prior to the occasion mentioned, which had occurred about eight months before appellant was charged with being drunk. In regard to appellant's condition it was shown by the testimony that, some time after the parties had assembled, appellant was seen lying down in the yard apparently sick; and some of the evidence shows that he vomited, and there is also evidence to the effect that one or more of the witnesses detected the odor of intoxicating liquors about his person. No witness testified to having seen, or even known, of his taking a drink of intoxicating liquor; nor was he seen in possession of any.
There are several interesting questions presented for revision, which we deem unnecessary to discuss, inasmuch as, under our view of the law and the evidence, if it be conceded that appellant was drunk, this did not occur at a public place. The private residence of Knox and his wife was not a public place, under the statute; nor was there any fact introduced in evidence which shows, or tends to show, that it was such public place. See ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Banda v. State
...Further, there is no evidence the public, or a substantial group of the public, had access to Liendo's yard. In Pugh v. State, 55 Tex.Crim. 462, 117 S.W. 817 (Tex.Cr.App.1909), the defendant was convicted of "being drunk in a public place." Id. The State's evidence demonstrated Pugh attende......
-
U.S. v. Fossler
...intoxication. 4 In view of his status as an uninvited stranger on the front lawn, his contention is unpersuasive. See Pugh v. State, 55 Tex.Cr.R. 462, 117 S.W. 817 (1909). The Texas courts have traditionally held that a place may be a public one or not according to the circumstances. See Cl......
-
City of Chicago v. Terminiello
...by invitation, then appellant would be entitled to an acquittal. This position seems well sustained by the recent case of Pugh v. State, 55 Tex.Cr.R. 462, 117 S.W. 817, .’ In State v. Rosenfield, 111 Minn. 301, 126 N.W. 1068, 1069, 29 L.R.A.,N.S., 331, 137 Am.St.Rep. 557, in considering a s......
-
Warrick v. State
...intoxication. 4 In view of his status as an uninvited stranger on the front lawn, his contention is unpersuasive. See Pugh v. State, 55 Tex.Cr.R. 462, 117 S.W. 817 (1909). The Texas Courts have traditionally held that a place may be a public one or not according to circumstances. See Clinto......