Sessions v. State
| Decision Date | 28 November 1906 |
| Citation | 98 S.W. 243 |
| Parties | SESSIONS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Wood County Court; J. O. Rouse, Judge.
Pink Sessions was convicted of violating the local option law, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Mounts & Jones, for appellant. J. E. Yantis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $25 and 20 days' confinement in the county jail; hence this appeal.
Appellant made a motion to quash and dismiss this prosecution, because the complaint did not begin "in the name and by the authority of the state of Texas." The complaint did not begin in the language of the Constitution. However, predicated on this was the information on which the case was prosecuted before the court below; and this contained the constitutional requirement "in the name and by authority of the state of Texas." In Ex parte Jackson (decided October 10, 1906) 96 S. W. 924, it was held that where the prosecution as in the justice court, was solely on the complaint, that this constitutional requirement must be complied with. However, in the decision of that case, the cases of Johnson v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 465, 20 S. W. 980, and Jefferson v. State, 24 Tex. App. 535, 7 S. W. 244, were referred to. In both of said cases it was held that inasmuch as the information on which the prosecution was conducted in said case began "in the name and by authority of the state of Texas," as required by the Constitution, that this was a sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement, notwithstanding the complaint, which was the basis of the prosecutions, did not contain the language of the Constitution. The case above decided was differentiated from said cases. We now hold that, inasmuch as the information began "in the name and by authority of the state of Texas," that this was sufficient. The complaint and information charge the sale as having been made to Dude Nobles and Hugh Foster of the whisky in question. The proof showed a sale alone to Dude Nobles. Appellant claimed a variance, and asked a charge to that effect. This should have been given. Not only so, but there was no controversy in the proof as to the sale being to Dude Nobles, and the prosecution could not be maintained for the sale to Nobles and Foster jointly.
We also believe that the court committed error in not allowing the witness, Annie Sessions, wife of appellant, to be sworn and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...by the proof. Ellington v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 86 S. W. 330; O'Shennessey v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 600, 96 S. W. 790; Sessions v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 98 S. W. 243. It was so held by this court when the sale of intoxicating liquor was a misdemeanor, and we see no reason now for liberaliz......
-
McGee v. State
...the Brown Case further than to say that it, in common with O'Shennessey v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 600, 96 S. W. 790; Sessions v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 98 S. W. 243; Ellington v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 86 S. W. 330; and Price v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 322, 202 S. W. 948, hold that there is a va......
-
Asher v. State
...R. 600, 96 S. W. 790; Price v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 322, 202 S. W. 948; Ellington v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 86 S. W. 330; Sessions v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 98 S. W. 243; Bruce v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 26, 44 S. W. 852; Yakel v. State, 30 Tex. App. 391, 17 S. W. 943, 20 S. W. 205; Arnold v. ......
-
Price v. State
...under this indictment upon proof that the sale was made to one of the parties named. This has been held in a number of cases. Sessions v. State, 98 S. W. 243; Jones v. State, 76 Tex. Cr. R. 239, 174 S. W. 349; O'Shennessey v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 600, 96 S. W. 790; Tippit v. State, 53 Tex.......