Case ID: sw_166/html/0164-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PRENDERGAST, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

COLEMAN v. STATE.
    (No. 3085.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 8, 1914.
    Rehearing Denied May 6, 1914.)
    Intoxicating Liquors (§ 146) — Offenses— Sale.
    Defendant, who, at the request of one who had ordered whisky, made affidavit that it was his and was not intended for any illegal purpose, paying the notary with money furnished by the party ordering the whisky, took the affidavit to the express office, signed for and received the liquor and delivered it to the party who had ordered it, was guilty of a sale in violation of the misdemeanor prohibition law.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 159, 160, 163; Dec. Dig. § 146.]
    Appeal from Nacogdoches County Court; Geo. F. Ingraham, Judge.
    Calvin Coleman was convicted of a sale in violation of the prohibition law, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    King & Seale, of Nacogdoches, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PRENDERGAST, P. J.

Misdemeanor prohibition has been in effect in Nacogdoches county since May, 1906. In November, 1913, Edgar Moore, with the knowledge and consent of appellant, ordered a case of whisky from a whisky dealer in Louisiana to be sent by express to Nacogdoches. The liquor dealer so shipped the whisky. When the whisky arrived in Nacogdoches, Moore was informed thereof. He and two others then made up the money, $12.75, for the whisky and paid it to the liquor dealer’s collecting agent in Nacogdoches. Appellant, at his instance, then went to' the express agent to procure the liquor. The express agent refused to deliver it to him unless and until he would make an affidavit that it was his whisky and that it was not intended for any illegal purpose. Moore and others then furnished him 25 cents for swearing to the affidavit. He went before a notary, made affidavit to the effect as above stated, paid the notary the 25 cents for swearing him thereto, took the affidavit, went to the express company, delivered the affidavit to the agent, signed for the whisky in the books of the express company, and received the whisky from the agent. He thereupon deliverd it to Jim Johnson for Moore and the others, -and it was so delivered to them.

The. case was tried before the court without a jury. The court adjudged him guilty and assessed the lowest penalty. In. our opinion the facts of this case bring it within the principles laid down and held by this court to constitute a sale in violation of the prohibition law, under the cases of Ashley v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. R. 471, 80 S. W. 1015; Treadaway v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 466, 62 S. W. 574; Dunn v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. R. 107, 86 S. W. 326, 22 Am. St. Rep. 734; Parks v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 165, 96 S. W. 329; McElroy v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 14, 95 S. W. 541; Bills v. State (Cr. App.) 64 S. W. 1047; Stokes v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 99, 90 S. W. 179; Walker v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 293, 106 S. W. 376; Cantell v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. R. 522, 85 S. W. 18; Hillard v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. R. 314, 87 S. W. 821; Sliger v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. R. 341, 88 S. W. 243; Jackson v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 248, 91 S. W. 574, and other cases.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.