Case ID: tex-crim_75/html/0225-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HABPEB, Judge.-", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wiley Whitten v. The State.
    No. 3327.
    Decided November 11, 1914.
    Local Option—Sale—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
    Where it was shown that defendant said that he had some whisky at home in his trunk; that prosecuting witness paid him for the whisky and went to defendant’s home where defendant’s brother showed him defendant’s trunk, and the witness went into it and got therefrom a quart of whisky, the sale was complete.
    Appeal from the County Court of Bed Biver. Tried below before the Hon. Geo. Morrison.
    Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the local option law; penalty, a fine of $25 and twenty days confinement in the county jail.
    The opinion states the case.
    
      
      Travis T. Thompson, for appellant.
    —On question of insufficiency of evidence: Williams v. State, 85 S. W. Rep., 1144; Nicholson v. State, 87 S. W. Rep., 343.
    
      C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
   HABPEB, Judge.-

—Appellant was convicted of violating the prohibition law in force in Bed Biver County.

His contention is that the evidence does not show a sale, in that it does not show a delivery of the whisky by appellant. Walter Keeton testified that he knew appellant and approached and told him he desired some whisky. . Appellant said that he had some at home in his trunk; that he paid appellant $3 for the whisky, and went to appellant’s home, and appellant’s brother showed him which.was appellant’s trunk, and he went into it and got a quart of whisky. This was a sale, and the court did not err in so holding.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.