Case ID: sw2d_111/html/0248-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, Judge. KRUEGER, Judge. PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

A. E. WOOLDRIDGE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
    No. 18871.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 13, 1937.
    Rehearing Denied Dec. 15, 1937.
    Callaway & Callaway, of Brownwood, for appellant.
    Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for violating the liquor laws of this State; punishment, a fine of $75.

The facts in this case, the contentions made, and the legal principles involved bring it within the comprehension of the decision of Stevens v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 110 S.W.2d 906, opinión this day handed down. See, also, Baker v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 106 S.W.2d 308. For the reasons stated in the above authorities, the judgment in this case is affirmed.

On Rehearing.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant, in a very able and carefully prepared motion for rehearing, earnestly insists that we erred in holding, on original submission of this case, that the inspectors of the Liquor Control Board were not accomplice witnesses. In support of the conclusion announced in the original opinion herein, we cited the case of Stevens v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 110 S.W.2d 906, delivered on October 13, 1937, where a similar question as here presented was thoroughly and extensively discussed by this court, and, upon authority of that case, the motion for rehearing is overruled.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.