Case ID: sw2d_344/html/0450-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DICE, Commissioner.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Elmer HARDY, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.
    No. 33135.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 22, 1961.
    See also 344 S.W.2d 451.
    
      R. E. Murphey, Coleman, for appellant.
    Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
   DICE, Commissioner.

The conviction is for unlawfully selling whiskey in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $100.

The information charged that, on or about the 13th day of February, 1960, the appellant did unlawfully sell whiskey to Ralph C. Elliott in Coleman County, Texas, a dry area.

Ralph C. Elliott, an inspector for the Texas Liquor Control Board, upon being called as a witness by the State, testified that, on the date alleged, he went to a place known as the Truck Harbor in the City of Santa Anna, Coleman County, Texas where he purchased from the appellant for $5 a pint of Tom Moore Whiskey. He further testified that, on such occasion, Inspector Wallace Newton Coburn, who was with him, also purchased a pint of whiskey from appellant. The pint of Tom Moore Whiskey, upon being identified by Inspector Elliott as the whiskey he purchased from appellant, was introduced in evidence as State’s Exhibit No. one. Inspector Coburn, upon being called as a witness by the State, corroborated the testimony of Officer Elliott relative to Elliott’s purchase of the pint of Tom Moore Whiskey from appellant and testified that, on such occasion, he also purchased a pint of whiskey from the appellant.

It was stipulated that Coleman County was a dry area.

Appellant did not testify but called as a witness Carroll Boatright who testified that he was present at the Truck Harbor on the occasion in'.question and observed one Darrell Wright deliver whiskey to the two liquor board inspectors tyhich he had ob-' tained from someone who drove up in an automobile, but that he did not, at-, such .time, see appellant or his automobile present on the premises.

The evidence is sufficient to support the conviction.

The record presents no formal hills of exception and there are no , obj ections. to the court’s charge. The informal bills of exception appearing in the statement of facts have been considered and do not present reversible error.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.

WOODLEY, P. J., absent.