Case ID: sw_137/html/0685-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HARPER, J. DAVIDSON, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ALEXANDER v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 1, 1911.
    Rehearing Denied May 3, 1911.)
    Appeal from District Court, Comanche County ; J. H. Arnold, Judge.
    Joe Alexander was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. R. Stubblefield, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. (Jen., for the State.
   HARPER, J.

In this case the appellant was indicted in the district court of Comanche county, charged with pursuing the occupation of selling intoxicating liquors; prohibition being in force in said county. Upon a trial he was convicted and sentenced to two years in the penitentiary.

The appellant makes the same contention as to the invalidity of the indictment, and that law prohibiting the pursuing of the occupation of selling intoxicating liquors not being in force in Comanche county, as is made in the case of Slack v. State, 136 S. W. 1073, this day decided. Por the reasons stated in that opinion, we hold the court did not err in overruling the motion to quash the indictment, and in holding the law in force in Comanche county.

There are several exceptions to the admissibility of testimony. The testimony was admissible, as defendant was charged with pursuing the occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in violation of law,_ and all this testimony had a bearing on this issue.

The judgment is affirmed.

DAVIDSON, P. J.

For reasons given in dissenting opinions in Slack v. State, Bell v. State, 137 S. W. 670, and Dozier v. State, 137 S. W. 679, this day decided, I dissent from the majority in this case.