THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OIFTEXA~ 

Hon. Joe U. Lovelaae 

County Attorney 

Cam County 

Linden, Texas 

Opinion RO. v-844. 

Re: The legality of possessing not more than one 

quart of liquor In Texas 

without papent of Texas 

tax. 

Dear sir: 

Your letter and brief requesting an opfnlon 

Ia set out, In part, a8 follows: 

“In Deoeaber o? 1948 the defendant use 

legally arrested and was found to have in his 

porsersion one full pint and one partial pint 

of whiskey whlah bore no Texas atamp and no 

valid evldenoe was affixed thereto whloh ahowed that the stamp had been paid. The evidence 

showed that the whimkey was bought la Arkansas, in compllanoe rlth their laws, and was 

brought into Texas for the personal use of the 

defendant. 

“Is there a conflict between &Male 666- 

23a, Sea. 4 (P.C,) and Article 666-17, Sec. 12 

P.C. 

t 18) t 

on the one aide, and Artiale 666-17 

P.C.) on the other side? 

“If there Is a oonfllct between the Statutes enumerated In the above paragraph, did 

Articles 666-17, Sea. 18, P.C., repeal, bg lb 

plloation, Article 666-23a, Sea. 4, P.C.? 

To arrive at a proper determination of these 

questions It must always be remembered that the Texas 

Liquor Control Aat as a whole presents a broad plan for 

the regulation of liquor. 

ArtSale 666-17, paragraph (18), V.P .C *, Is 

quoted as follows: 
Bon. Joe W. Lovelaoe, page 2 (v-844) 

"It shall be,unlawfuYfor'any person to 

Import, or to transport Into thfs Sty&e from 

any plaoe outslde~the Stsrte~any~llquer, In 

exoews of, one (1) quart, in containers to 

whioh have not been affixed proper staiktax 

: .;$m;gd,F&sana;nte;d 

P 

located wlthzn,'the state boun&ar$es, unens the same shall be~oonslgned~t the holder of a Wholesaler's Permit authorkag the 

sale of such liquor and at his plaoe of business . * 

Article 666-23a, paragraph 4, V.P.C. provides: 

"It Is provided that any person may 

bring Into this State not more than one quart 

the required State tax atamps." 

It is apparent that the above quoted sect$ona 

of the Texas Liquor Control Act apply to different faot 

situations. Paragraph (18) of Artlole 666-17 applies to 

a pereon importing or transporting into this State any 

Uzuo$ in excess of one quart, while paragraph 4, Artl- 

-23a, applies to any person bringing into this 

State not more than one quart of liquor for his own permmal use. Therefore, the two seotionn are not in conill t Sinae there Is no confllot, Article 666-17 (18) 

doe; iot repeal paragraph 4, Art&e 666~23a. 

In Role8 v. State, 132 S.W.2d 881, (Tex. Crln. 

1939) the Court aft1 d th e judgment of the trial court 

by which Roles was ozicted for having possession of 

Wh;h:t; in a pint container to which no stamp tax was 

This case specifically distinguishes the holding In iorton v. State, 105 S.W.2d 669, (Tex. Crla. 

1937) which stood for the pro$obitlon that a person 

could bring a tax-exempt quart or less Into the State. 

In the Roles decision, Judge Rawklas said: 

*It appears that appellant was transporting the liquor from Louisiana Into Texas. 

Our State's attorney ealla attention to Horton v. State, 132 Tex. Cr. R. 488, 105 S.W. 

2d 669, suggesting that our holding there 

might be regarded as against eustalnlng the 
Hon. Joe Ii. Lovelaae, page 3 (v-844) 

oonvlctlon here unless a change In the statute be mentioned. The holding in Horton's 

case was based on a provlslon In Seotion 4 of 

Ar;;rgt* V$q~;~s 2?:xi6FjC. (Ads 44th Leg- 

. The provlslon 

was omItted fr&'~ald Section 4 under the 

Aots of the 45th Legislature. . . . Attention 

la called to the ohange In the 'Texas Liquor 

Control Aat’ so any apparent oonfllet with 

the holding here and in Horton*8 case, supra, 

may be dispelled." 

The facts in the Boles case are slmllar to the 

fat&B set out In your requexnaacly, that the defend-t 

possessed one pint of liquor for hls personal use aad 

without the payment of tax. Therefore, under this authority, while a person may bring into this State not 

more than one quart of liquor for his own personal use, 

if sueh person falls to pay the requlred tax, he has vlolated the Texas Liquor Control Aot; to tit, possesslng 

lllloit beverage. 

There Is no conflict between Artiole 

666-17 (18) V.P.C. and Artlole 666-238 (4) 

V.P.C. inasmuch as Article 666-17 (18) applies only when the amount of liquor imported into this State Is In excess of one 

quart and Article 666~23a (4) applies only 

where the amount Is one quart or less and Is 

being used for personal use. A person who 

brings into this State one qu& of liquor 

or less for his own personal use, and does 

not pay the required tax, violates the Texas 

Liquor Control Act, to wit: possessing illicit beverage. Roles v. State, 132 S.Y.2d 

881 (Tex. Crlm. 1939). 

Yours very truly, 

ATTORIVRY QRHRRAL OF TEXAS 

ATl’ORItRY QRNERAL 

JR:lg:bh 

John Reeves 

AfiiBistanf