Rippey v. State
| Citation | 73 S.W. 15 |
| Parties | RIPPEY v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 18 March 1903 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from Grayson County Court; G. P. Webb, Judge.
Granville Rippey was convicted of crime, and appeals. Affirmed.
Etheridge & Baker, Moseley & Eppstein, and Clark & Bolinger, for appellant. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is a conviction for violating the local option law, the punishment assessed being the minimum.
Appellant suggests but one question for decision, to wit: "That the local option law of this state, as embraced in title 69 of the Revised Statutes of 1895, and especially articles 3384-3399 of said Statutes, and article 402 of the Penal Code, prescribing a penalty against any person who shall sell intoxicating liquor in any county, justice precinct, city, or town in which the sale of intoxicating liquor had been prohibited, are invalid, null and void, in that said enactment of the Legislature contravened the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, for this: that said enactment abridged the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and deprived a large number of said citizenship, and especially appellant, of liberty and property without due process of law, and deny to a large class of citizenship of the state of Texas, including appellant, the equal protection of the laws, and such legislation constituted class legislation, within the meaning of the law."
This case was before us under the writ of habeas corpus at the Austin term, 1902, where these questions were at issue and decided adversely to appellant's contention. Ex parte Rippy (Tex. Cr. App.) 68 S. W. 687. Practically the same questions were involved in Ex parte Fields, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 50, 46 S. W. 1127. In that case the questions were also decided adversely to appellant. We see no reason for changing the views heretofore expressed in those opinions, and upon the authority of those cases the judgment in this case is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gordon v. Corning
...State, 136 Ala. 106, 34 South. 350;Hamer v. People, 104 Ill. App. 555;Sweeney v. Webb, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 324, 76 S. W. 766;Rippey v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 73 S. W. 15;Gray v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. App. 470, 72 S. W. 169;Jenkins v. State, 82 Miss. 500, 34 South. 217;Webster v. State (Tenn.) 75 ......
-
Gordon v. Corning
...... determined by this court, since this appeal was perfected, in. the case of McPherson v. State (1910),. ante, 60, except that in that case the question as. to the effect upon the jurisdiction of boards of. commissioners of a county local ...106, 34 So. 350;. Hamer v. People (1902), 104 Ill.App. 555;. Sweeney v. Webb (1903), 33 Tex. Civ. App. 324, 76 S.W. 766; Rippey v. State (1903),. 73 S.W. 15; Gray v. State (1903), 44 Tex. Crim. 470, 72 S.W. 169; Jenkins v. State. (1903), 82 Miss. 500, 34 So. 217; Webster v. ......