| "{\"id\": \"10261772\", \"name\": \"NELSON v. STATE\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"Nelson v. State\", \"decision_date\": \"1930-11-26\", \"docket_number\": \"No. 13656\", \"first_page\": \"443\", \"last_page\": \"444\", \"citations\": \"35 S.W.2d 443\", \"volume\": \"35\", \"reporter\": \"South Western Reporter Second Series\", \"court\": \"Texas Court of Criminal Appeals\", \"jurisdiction\": \"Texas\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-11T01:52:23.665970+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"HAWKINS, J., absent.\", \"parties\": \"NELSON v. STATE.\", \"head_matter\": \"NELSON v. STATE.\\nNo. 13656.\\nCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas.\\nNov. 26, 1930.\\nRehearing Denied Feb. 11, 1931.\\nReynolds & Heare, of Shamrock, and J. Everett Cline, of Fort Worth, for appellant.\\n\\u2022 Lloyd W. Davidson, State\\u2019s Atty., of Austin, for the State.\", \"word_count\": \"720\", \"char_count\": \"4063\", \"text\": \"MARTIN, J.\\nOffense, the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year in the penitentiary.\\nProsecuting witness, Conway, testified to the unconditional sale to himself by appellant of one quart of whisky, for which he paid him $2.50. He was corroborated by another witness.\\nThe chief contention made on this appeal is the alleged error of the court in failing to define the term \\\"sale.\\\" As already indicated, the testimony for the state showed an absolute sale. Appellant testified that he was standing near when the prosecuting witness asked for whisky for medicinal purposes, and that he then said:\\n\\\"I told him that he couldn't buy it but if he would come in the house I would let him have what I had, if it would do him any' good. There was nothing said about the price of it or paying for it, or borrowing it or paying it back or anything of that kind, but it was in my mind that he would replace the whisky.\\\"\\nWe do not think that the quoted testimony called for any charge of the character suggested. The testimony for the state made out a sale, and that for the appellant showed a gift, of the whisky. There was not, in our opinion, any suggestion of barter or exchange or any character of transaction other than either a straight sale' or gift of the whisky in question. Under such circumstanc'es, it was not necessary to define the term \\\"sale.\\\" Asher v. State, 102 Tex. Cr. R. 162, 277 S. W. 1099; Stephens v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 251, 96 S. W. 7; Young v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 277, 243 S. W. 472.\\nSpecial charge No. 6 requested the court to submit the issue of the transaction being only a gift, which was apparently appellant's theory of the case. The court refused to give this charge, but his action was not excepted to, and, in the absence of such, the question cannot be reviewed. Linder v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 317, 250 S. W. 703.\\nFinding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.\\nPER CURIAM.\\nThe foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.\\nHAWKINS, J., absent.\"}" |