Case Name: Louis Szymanski v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-02-07
Citations: 93 Tex. Crim. 631
Docket Number: No. 7370
Parties: Louis Szymanski v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 93
Pages: 631–634

Head Matter:
Louis Szymanski v. The State.
No. 7370.
Decided February 7, 1923.
1. —Transporting Intoxicating Liquor — Precedent.
Where, upon trial of transporting intoxicating liquor, the appellant raised a number of questions which had been settled by a number of recent decisions by this Court, the same will not be considered.
2. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence — Pecuniary Interests.
It is not indispensable to a conviction that the transporter of whisky have any pecuniary interests in it, or that he exercises any claim of ownership, or that he have the custody thereof. If there was testimony to show that appellant knew there was whisky in the car which he was driving, he would be violating the law, and the evidence showing such a condition, the conviction is sustained.
2. —Rehearing—Opinion of Witnesses — Intoxicating Liquor.
The state’s witnesses having qualified themselves as to their knowledge and experience, and having examined, smelled and tasted the liquor in question could testify that it was intoxicating.
3. —Knowledge of Defendant.
Where it was shown by the evidence that the defendant had unquestioned knowledge of the fact that the passenger in his car was transporting intoxicating liquor, he could not plead that he was merely the driver of the car, and that another person therein, had the care, control and custody of such liquor.
Appeal from the District Court of Brazos. Tried below before the Honorable W. C. Davis.
Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Buffington & Leigh, Henderson and Ranson, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
Appellant was convicted' in the District Court of Brazos County of transporting intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of one year.
Appellant raises a number of questions in various ways in the record, each complaint in which has been carefully examined, but all of the legal questions raised havé been settled by decisions of this court on exactly similar questions, adversely to the contentions made by appellant and no good purpose will be served by any discussion of them in this opinion.
Appellant complains that the testimony is insufficient to support the verdict. It is shown by testimony that ori the date alleged in the indictment appellant and a man named Prescott and a couple of negroes came by the home of a witness who lived about four miles from College Station in Brazos county. They had some car trouble. , The witness near whose home said party came went down to the scene and rendered some assistance, and Prescott tried to induce him to drink some whisky, which he said they had there in the car, and told him that if he wanted it he was as welcome to it as the flowers in May. Quite a bit of conversation in regard to the whisky was testified to by this witness. The conversation was had in the presence of appellant. After fixing, up the car the party drove ori, appellant driving. The witness then telephoned to the sheriff and the officer went out and searched the car in question and found in it a half gallon jug of whisky and a half gallon jar of whisky. The jug was in a sack between the seats and the jar was under the back seat. Appellant's defense was that he was requested by Prescott to drive him in said car on the day in question. He disclaimed any connection with the whisky. We do not think it indispensable to a conviction that the transporter of whisky have any pecuniary interest in it, or that he exercise, any claim of ownership, or that he have the custody thereof. If it be conceded that there was no testimony to show that appellant knew there was whisky in the car which he was driving, until the conversation had with the witness first above mentioned, still there could be no seeming claim that he did not know after that that he was driving a car in which there was whisky. The trial court submitted the issue fairly to the jury, instructing them- upon the law of principals and telling them that unless they believed beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant either alone or acting with Pres cott transported the liquor in question, he should be found not guilty.
We are unable to agree with appellant's contention that the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict, and an affirmance is ordered.
Affirmed.