Shilling v. State

• Decision Date: 10 May 1899
• Citation: 51 S.W. 240
• Parties: SHILLING v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

51 S.W. 240

SHILLING v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 10, 1899.

Appeal from Coleman county court; B. F. Rose, Judge.

Jim Shilling was convicted of violating the local option law, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROOKS, J.

Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $25 and 20 days' confinement in the county jail.

Appellant moved to quash the indictment, because the same charged no offense against the law, etc. The charging part of the indictment is as follows: "That Jim Shilling, on or about the 30th day of January, 1897, and anterior to the presentment of this indictment, in justice precinct No. 5 in the county of Coleman and state of Texas, did then and there unlawfully sell to Ed Henderson intoxicating liquor, after the qualified voters of said justice precinct had determined, at an election held in accordance with the laws of said state, that the sale of intoxicating liquor should be prohibited in said justice precinct, and the commissioners' court of said county had passed an order to that effect, which order had been duly published in accordance with law; against the peace and dignity of the state." We hold this indictment is good. Key v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 77, 38 S. W. 773; Willis v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 82, 38 S. W. 776.

Appellant contends that the court erred in permitting the state to introduce in evidence before the jury, over his objection, the order of the commissioners' court of Coleman county, of date August 16, 1893, ordering a local option election in justice precinct No. 5. We have heretofore passed upon the validity of this particular local option law in Coleman county, and held it valid. Ex parte Schilling (Tex. Cr. App.) 42 S. W. 553.

Appellant, in his third assignment of error, complains that the court erred in permitting R. V. Wood to testify as to the number of votes cast in the elections in 1892 and 1894 in the voting precinct in which Washington school house is a voting place. We think it was immaterial as to how many votes were cast at those elections, and hence the court did not make material error in permitting the same to be introduced.

His fourth assignment complains of the court's refusal to permit him to introduce the testimony of Jack Mays and Upton Henderson. We do not think there was any error in this ruling. It appears that while the county attorney was making his closing speech, appellant offered to prove by said witnesses facts that tended to contradict and impeach the testimony of the prosecuting witness, Ed...