Case Name: Henry Jordan v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1897-01-27
Citations: 37 Tex. Crim. 222
Docket Number: No. 1124
Parties: Henry Jordan v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 37
Pages: 222–224

Head Matter:
Henry Jordan v. The State.
No. 1124.
Decided January 27th, 1897.
Motion for Rehearing Decided February 24th, 1897.
1. Local Option,—Order for Election—Description of Territory.
Where the petition, order of the court for the election and the order of court declaring the result and putting local option into effect within the bounds set out in the petition, and the same are certain and definite as to the territory embraced within the local option election, it is immaterial that the territory is also described as “School District No. 7,” and whether there was or was not an order on the minutes ■of the court creating “School District No. 7.”
ON MOTION POR REHEARING.
2. Same—Penalty in Subdivisions.
Article 378, Penal Code, does provide the penalty for a violation of local option in “Subdivisions,” though “Subdivisions”, are not mentioned in said article, because Revised Statutes, Article 3239, expressly makes a violation of any of the provisions of the local option law punishable as is prescribed in the Penal Code. Following, Ex parte Segars, 32 Tex. Crim. Rep., 553.
3. Same—-Indictment—Surplusage.
An indictment for violation of local option is not fatally defective where it alleges, that defendant both sold and gave away intoxicating liquor. Where the statutory Words, “exchange or gift” are used in an indictment charging a sale, they may be treated as surplusage and leave a good indictment for the sale. Disapproving, Ferguson v. State, 25 Tex. Crim. App., 451.
4. Same—Charge—Harmless Error.
On a trial for the sale of intoxicating liquor in violation of local option, where the ■court charged the jury to convict, if they believed that defendant sold, “or gave away” whiskey. Held: Erroneous; but, the case being a misdemeanor, and the charge not being excepted to it did not constitute reversible error, and especially so where there was no evidence tending even remotely to prove a gift.
Appeal from the County Court of Ellis. Tried below before Hon. J. C. Smith, County Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for violation of local option; penalty, afine of $25, and twenty days’ imprisonment in the county jail.
No statement necessary.
John D. McRae, for appellant.
Mann Trice, Assistant, Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law, and prosecutes this appeal. This is a companion case to Kelley v. State, ante p. 220. The questions are the same. Appellant, in addition to the evidence introduced in the Kelley case, introduces the order of the Commissioners' Court creating School District No. 7. That order did not mention the surveys included within the metes and bounds of said school district. It is urged on account of this omission that said order creating said school district is wholly insufficient for the intended purpose. So far as this case is concerned, it is wholly immaterial whether it was or was not. The petition, order of the court ordering the election, and the order of the court putting local option into effect within the bounds set out in said petition for local option election are certain and definite, and do not depend upon the order of the Commissioners' Court creating School District No. '7. There is no uncertainty in the orders of the court with reference to the territory embraced within the local option election; and whether there was an order 0* noton the minutes of the court creating School District No. 7, so far as this case is concerned, is immaterial. The evidence is sufficient to support the conviction, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.