Case ID: tex-crim_90/html/0256-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, Judgu.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Frank Cox v. The State.
    No. 6423.
    Decided November 9, 1921.
    Intoxicating Liquors — Possession of Equipment — Statutes Construed.
    Where the amended statutes disclosed that possession of equipment for making intoxicating liquor is not enumerated in the forbidden act, the same constitutes a repeal of the law under which defendant was convicted, and the judgment must be reversed "and dismissed. Following Harold v. State, 16 Texas Crim. App., 157, and other cases.
    Appeal from the District Court of Shelby. Tried below before the Honorable Charles T. Brachfield.
    Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully possessing equipment for making intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary, with recommendation for suspended sentence.
    The opinion states the case.
    
      D. R. Taylor and Sanders & Sanders, for appellant.
    Cited cases in opinion, also Williams v. State, 227 S. W. Rep. 316.
    
      (A number of subsequent cases were reversed and dismissed for the same reason as stated in this opinion, and are therefore not reported. — Ruportur).
    
      R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, Judgu.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Shelby county of possessing equipment for making intoxicating liquor. But one question will be noticed.

Under Section 1 of the Dean Law it was made penal to possess equipment for making spirituous, vinous or malt liquor, or other intoxicant, and the prosecution and conviction herein was under- said Section 1. Said Sections 1 and 2 were amended by what is Chapter 61, Acts First and Second Called Sessions, Thirty-seventh Legislature. An examination of said amended statutes discloses that possession of such equipment is not enumerated in the forbidden acts. This constitutes a repeal of the law under which appellant was convicted, and under our statutes and all of. our decisions we have no option but to direct that this case be reversed and dismissed. Art. 16, Vernon’s P. C.; Holden v. State, 1 Texas Crim. App. 225; Harold v. State, 16 Texas Crim. App. 157; State v. Andrews, 20 Texas, 230; Chambers v State, 25 Texas, 307.

The cause will be reversed and ordered dismissed.

Reversed and dismissed.