Wade v. State
| Decision Date | 19 February 1908 |
| Parties | WADE v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Montague County Court; Geo. S. March, Judge.
Bud Wade was convicted of violating the local option law, and appeals. Affirmed.
J. W. Chancellor, for appellant. F. J. McCord, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was charged in the county court of Montague county with unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors in violation of the local option law, and on trial was convicted, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $50 and 40 days' confinement in the county jail. The evidence is sufficient beyond doubt to sustain the conviction. The errors relied upon relate mainly to the sufficiency of the indictment and the validity of the local option law in Montague county.
Complaint is made that the information filed in the case is insufficient, in that the necessary steps precedent to putting local option in force in Montague county were not in terms averred. This question has been frequently passed on in this court, as it has been held in the case of Key v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 77, 38 S. W. 773, and other cases, that it is sufficient in general terms to aver the adoption of the local option election and the due publication of same. While it is conceded that all the statutory provisions precedent to putting the local option law into operation must be complied with, and that unless this is shown the law will not be operative, it is not required in an indictment charging local option that the evidence constituting a performance of such preliminary steps shall in all respects be specifically pleaded. It is averred in the information in this case that at the time of the unlawful sale charged in the indictment the sale of intoxicating liquor had been previously prohibited under the laws of said county, and that said local option laws were at that time in full force and effect, and that the sale in question was made after the qualified voters of said county had, at a legal election held for that purpose in accordance with law, determined that the sale of intoxicating liquor should be prohibited in said county; that the commissioners' court had declared the result of such election, and had legally passed an order to that effect, which order had been duly published in a newspaper selected by the county judge of said county. This we think is sufficient under the strictest rule ever adopted by this court.
Many objections are made to orders of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sandaval v. State
...116 S. W. 571; Johnson v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 340, 109 S. W. 936; Wade v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 186, 109 S. W. 191; Wade v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 610, 108 S. W. 376; Wade v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 621, 108 S. W. 677; Hood v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 525, 107 S. W. 848. But in all cases so dec......
-
Elam v. State
...109 S. W. 191; Wade v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 300, 109 S. W. 192; Johnson v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 340, 109 S. W. 936; Wade v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 610, 108 S. W. 376. Those cases hold that it is immaterial which election, whether that of 1903 or 1906, is alleged and relied upon by the stat......
-
Rhone v. State
...Cr. App.) 97 S. W. 483; Key v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 77, 38 S. W. 773; Starnes v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 107 S. W. 550; Wade v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 108 S. W. 376. Appellant objected to the introduction of the judge's certificate of the fact of publication of the result, relying upon Ladwig......
-
Holmes v. State
...have decided this matter adversely to appellant in the cases of Massie v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 548, 107 S. W. 846, and Wade v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 608, 108 S. W. 376. Appellant's third ground of his motion for a new trial is thus stated: "Because the court erred in the 4 of the charge." ......