Rushing v. State, 21146.

Decision Date19 June 1940
Docket NumberNo. 21146.,21146.
Citation141 S.W.2d 607
PartiesRUSHING v. STATE.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Appeal from Fisher County Court; Carl C. Wilson, Judge.

Joe Rushing was convicted of the sale of whisky in a dry area, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

H. F. Grindstaff, of Rotan, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is the sale of whisky in a dry area. The punishment assessed is confinement in the county jail for a period of thirty days.

The record reflects that upon the trial of the case appellant admitted that Fisher County was a dry area.

The State introduced J. M. Rich, an agent of the Texas Liquor Control Board, who testified that on the 11th day of June, 1939, he went to the appellant's place of business located at Rotan, in Fisher County, and purchased from him one pint of "Spot" liquor; that he paid appellant $1.50 for said liquor; that when he left the appellant's place of business he went immediately to the office of the sheriff of Fisher County and delivered to him the whisky in question, which was identified by the witness when offered in evidence.

Appellant took the witness stand in his own behalf and testified that J. M. Rich employed him to gather horses for him; that he offered to pay appellant $20 if he could gather him a herd of horses. He denied that he sold any whisky to Rich either on June 10th or 11th or at any other time; that sometime prior to June 10th or 11th, the witness Rich came to the appellant's place of business and left some beer; that on the morning of June 11th he came back and called for the beer which he had left there.

A. C. Dyson, who was a son-in-law of the appellant, testified that he was at the appellant's place of business on Sunday, June 11th, when J. M. Rich was there; that he heard Rich ask for some beer which he had theretofore left at the appellant's place of business; that appellant and Rich drank some of the beer; that no money was passed; and that appellant did not sell or offer to sell any whisky to Rich.

Luther Milwee testified that he was at the appellant's place of business on the morning of June 11th; that J. M. Rich came there and drank some beer with the appellant; that appellant did not sell any whisky to Rich; that he (witness) was not related to the appellant in any way.

This was all of the testimony adduced upon the trial of the case.

Appellant urges five legal propositions upon which he asks for a reversal of this case. We do not deem it necessary to discuss all of them in view of the disposition we are making of the case as some may not arise again upon another trial.

By Bill of Exception No. 4 appellant complains of the action of the court in permitting the County Attorney, over the appellant's objection, to ask Luther Milwee on cross-examination if he had not on a former occasion testified in behalf of Jim Gallagher, who was being tried for having violated the liquor law, to which question appellant objected because it was irrelevant, immaterial and highly prejudicial. The objection was overruled and the witness was compelled to testify relative to being a witness in the case of the State of Texas v. Jim Gallagher. The bill shows and the court so certifies, that Jim Gallagher had been convicted in Fisher County several times for violations of the liquor laws; that he was twice under injunction of the District Court with reference to liquor law violations and his cases had been before the court many times, all of which was well known to the jurors of Fisher County; that the county attorney, by being permitted to go into the matter held the witness up to the jurors as a supporter of bootleggers and thereby discredited his testimony.

We think this action on the part of the trial court reflects reversible error. It left the impression with the jury that the witness Milwee was standing in with the bootleggers; that he was a witness for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Mackin v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • April 3, 1963
    ...628, 187 S.W. 332; McDuff v. State, 103 Tex.Cr.or. 668, 281 S.W. 1073; Dowd v. State, 104 Tex.Cr.R. 480, 284 S.W. 592; Rushing v. State, 139 Tex.Cr.R. 502, 141 S.W.2d 607; Jones v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 115, 205 S.W.2d 590; Alford v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 632, 258 S.W.2d 817; Hickerson v. Sta......

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