The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-05-14
AN IMPORTANT OPINION.
Rcverses Accepted Rule as to Selling
Liquor In Local Option Districts.
TIE STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO LICENSE
Persons to Sell Liquor Under re-
strfotions Even Though THIS
sale IL Prohibited.

-. :, .rir,t,al anneals reversing
- ~. o,,.D,ad rula
sAas nAs MO- $500 a., II
With regard 10 liquor ooSupA'oA -
ocal option districts:
II was rendered In the case OF Norman
,na,riy annellant- va. The StsSs OF Texas.
-
Ippeiiee'
Appellant WAS convicted IL tne SouAA''
curt OF Clay county for selling intoxicat-
NO lio,,ora I'm "a local optiou district, With
....,,,,,., a., a., o,cunat,an lay ~. II
49,
equTsd ~ Law.
Appellant IL his hist assignment Oh eE
,o,s. urges lnal inc lnalclulsaL aoes noI
'o,,ea NV ouause asalaal LnS lave Ok Gnis
$3.50 ina nu1clnlout ~ as Louows:
~, ....,.., ,e,v an o,. anoul
iAAs ---'|-- $500, ~ and az
mo A'tN 1A' y. .''''--~--,, ~ fo. tI,,~l-
ee4i'4 ~ 49, 80 S'>-',-.- - ,t,,y0 an, "a
AAen'' - NA.s ,.'' s'.c,Ion ma n,..n
co,,Tfv ny ia o,,,llusu
leia IA s4la souNJ 80 s
H"seiS 100 eS-' ~ mai toa sa,e
70 aeeai iA.Ao -'''-''' a'1,t M 49,
oL 1AloAic'ns 4i4uo's =
hiDllsu AZ sou N"uN''' 49, -',on,nI
iIon AAu Eesui'oa IA 800 = S
uon IN saIu S01ntS' euu tue
sioners eouF Oh saiu SouA'' -''N 49,
made paSseo anu eA'e4ee 40 80,
cIArlng the resu4t VI SuSH eiee'-S- '+iN
prohibiting Inc saio "a A-t'A4S"'lAs
liquors snou!a Oo p4oh4oI'eo ~ sH
county is reQulreu Ny law unu na1
caused said oraeF 70 De puoIlshcu ~
the manned anu LoFih lol Inc lehs1n VI
time required ny Aa", uiu ulA'a"Aut4'
engage IN, pursue and follow the oc-
cupation OF selling spiflLuous VAous
and malt liquors and meulchteu Dr.
teIs. the said occupation Oelns linen
and there taxable by law, without nfSt
obtaining license therefor, ana the
taxes then and there due by him TO the
said State upon said occupation
amounted to $500, and the taxes then
and there due BY him 10 said county
upon said occupation amonnted 10
500; the said tax due by him TO SAID
county having been heretofore duly
levied by the commissioners court OF
said Clay county at It's February term,
A. d.. lS9S--against the peace and dig
nifty OF the State.
The Twenty fifth Legislature (page 1883
enacted the following law:
Article 506sa. Hereafter there shall
be collected from every person, nrm,
cornoration or association OF persons,
sailing snIrituous, yinous or malt Ii
nnors mr. medicated bltters capable of
nroducInR intoxicatIou, in this State,
10, locnted in any comfy. subdivision
Of n county Justice precinct, city or
sou,n where local option Is In force
,,nder the Iaws of Texas, an annual tax
- conn on ZACH separate establishment,
% so1,oys For selling such LIQUORS or
10000 hittara I'm quantities OF ono
49,. ~ iass than one gallon. 5000;
s,Ta snch Iiouorz az medicated
IL. IL ,montities of ono gallon or
49, ,han one gnIlon s80O. provided,
W.. o. sa,Iin1 one gallon the same
~ vaada IN ~ different linuors in
may 10 niA~ 80 otfaSas aeerayatjng not
gnpio ,S 49, snr seiling matt
iess .n'n oIr,.i%alv s5o Aud theirs
iquotS $500 "a tro,,, avsrv narson
snali pe ooI n'Io' =. asaacIstIon NJ ner,
nm w pot 800 s,,o,ate astahIisbrnent
sons' toI eso, .s.5tan+,d M
Selling suou ~ S,a - Io.atad r,,th-
tsqs WITHIN LUIS pa 5,'', s1.S ~ no,,,,t,,
IN county, supuINlsion a. .h,:h
justice preeinel, FoWn OF oi.y' Va Tn 80.
the sum OF s@Uu' pFoylueu' ny sal'-'
shall not DO soia ID bucn loealltt On
cept on prescription anu III coiipftn.o
with the laws governing safes III sucn.
localities, etc. , -.
II will be seen that the Indictment hcr'
In is drawn under inns artlcle OIL sho Ao
or the Twenty-n1th legislature Inc az
of the Twenty-hfth legislature Went IN.
effect on August ~, 1885, me coihnli'
sioners court OF Cray county oraereu
election for said county on local Vpuo
and tho election was helu uhuer saiu o
der on August. 1897. me result OF ga
election was declared on August ana Pul
lication OF said order was MADE ior io'
weeks. after whicn time local option w
IN force. We nave heretofore nero W
until tho completion OF the publication
the order declaring the result OF the Gle
ton In favor of local option had been ma
for four consecutive weeks, that the 10
10 not in borce In the precinct or coun
attempting to adopt 1t. This being G
case. 1t clearly appears that the acts
1897. above alluded to. were in force
Clay county prior to the time that loo
option went into effect in said Gil
county. (Aiken VS.. State. Ia Ap
142) 1t follows therefore that local optl,
having been adopted In Clay county su
seduent to the time that the occupati
tax with reference to local option di
trtcts went into effect that the people we
apprised of the occupation tax being
force prior to the time that local opti
went into effect: hence the occupation {
would be In force in Clay county.
This is not In contravention OF the
cision OF this court In eX parte Bains,
s. W. Rep. "a; for that decision was re
dered upon the theory that the occupati
tax complained OF by appellant was an
novation and an addition upon the 10,
option law already adopted by the peop