Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 03 March 1897 |
| Citation | 39 S.W. 664 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Collin county court; M. G. Abernathy, Judge.
Harry Williams was convicted of violating the local option law in a county subdivision, and appeals. Affirmed.
J. M. Pearson, Smith, Evans & Terrell, and Garnett, Jones & Meritt, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.
Conviction for violating local option law. 1. The indictment was presented in the district court, and transferred to the county court of Collin county. Appellant pleaded to the jurisdiction of the county court, because the order transferring the case was not a legal order. It makes no difference whether or not the district court had adjourned when the order for and the transfer were made. The record shows that the indictment was returned into open court by the grand jury.
2. In the plea to the jurisdiction are improperly embraced (but we will consider the same) grounds in support of a motion to quash the indictment, because it does not charge an offense; that it is vague, indefinite, and uncertain; does not state acts, but merely charges conclusions; does not allege that the election has been held for the purpose of determining whether or not the sale of intoxicating liquors should be prohibited in said district; does not charge that the sale had been prohibited by the proper order; does not allege that the local option law was in full force and effect at the time of the sale; does not negative that the sale was of wine for sacramental purposes, or that the liquor was for medicine in case of actual sickness. We have carefully examined this indictment, and find it to be correct. It alleges that the election had been held in that subdivision of the county, that the commissioners' court of said county had passed an order to that effect, and that said order had been published as required by law, and that said order was in full force and effect (which is not necessary). Must the indictment negative the fact that the liquor was sold for sacramental purposes, or for medicinal purposes, under the prescription of a physician? The act defining the offense is contained in article 402, Pen. Code 1895, and article 3384, Rev. St. 1895. These articles do not refer "to the sale of wine for sacramental purposes, nor of alcoholic stimulants as medicine in case of actual sickness," etc. These exceptions are not found in the articles defining the offense, but in a separate and distinct article, to wit, article 403, Pen. Code 1895. Under a well-settled rule, all of the elements entering into the offense must be alleged in the indictment. The legislature cannot relieve the state of the necessity of so framing the indictment, as to charge the accused with all the acts and intents which constitute the offense. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slack v. State
...as article 452, and it is now the law of this state and has been since 1895, for more than 15 years. In the case of Williams v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 241, 39 S. W. 664, Judge Hurt, who is recognized as one of the ablest lawyers who ever sat on this bench, says: "Must the indictment negative......
-
State v. Davis
... ... 1 Bishop's New Crim ... Proc. §§ 631-633; 10 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 495; United States v ... Cook, 17 Wall. 168, 21 L.Ed. 538; Clark v ... State, 19 Ala. 552; State v. Thompson, 2 Kan ... 433; State v. Elam, 21 Mo.App. 290; State v ... Williams, 9 Mont. 179, 23 P. 335; Williams v. State ... (Tex. Cr. App.) 39 S.W. 664 ... Respondent ... further contends that the justice of the peace had no ... jurisdiction to try him on the complaint made, for the reason ... that section 3 of the statute of 1899 ... ...
-
Baker v. State
...such exception. In section 510 of his Annotated P.C. Mr. Branch cites many cases so holding, among which will be found Williams v. State, 37 Tex.Cr.R. 238, 39 S. W. 664; Newman v. State, 58 Tex.Cr.R. 223, 124 S.W. 956; Milling v. State, 67 Tex. Cr.R. 551, 150 S.W. 434, and Lowery v. State, ......
-
Racer v. State
...Key v. State, 38 S. W. 773; Dollins v. State, 38 S. W. 775; English v. State, 38 S. W. 778; Zollicoffer v. State, 38 S. W. 775; Williams v. State, 39 S. W. 664; Hall v. State, 39 S. W. 117; Williams v. State, 70 S. W. 213, 5 Tex. Ct. Rep. 911; Brown v. State, 39 S. W. The validity of the la......