Case Name: POINTER v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1910-11-23
Citations: 132 S.W. 136
Docket Number: 
Parties: POINTER v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 132
Pages: 136–136

Head Matter:
POINTER v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 23, 1910.)
Intoxicating Liquors (§ 236 ) — Criminal Law (§ 304 ) — Violation of Local Option Law — Prosecution—Proof—Judicial Notice.
A person cannot be convicted for violation of the county option law, in the absence of proof that such law was adopted in the county where the prosecution is pending subsequently to the passage of the statute, since judicial notice of the existence of such law will not be taken.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Dec. Dig. § 236; Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 706; Dec. Dig. § 304. ]
Appeal from District Court, Clay County; A. H. Carrigan, Judge.
Walter Pointer was convicted of violation of the local option law, and appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
John A. Mobley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
RAMSEY, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Clay county on the 17th day of May of this year of a charge of violation of the local option law in said county, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years.
The statement of facts filed in the case shows that the following proof was made, and.none other, of the putting in force of' local option in said county: "The state first offered in evidence certified copy of the prohibition orders filed in this court May 14, 1910, by District Clerk A. A. Weeks, and showing that this prohibition law is in effect in Clay county, Tex." It will be noted from this recital that it does not appear when local option was voted in Clay county. Nor is it recited that any election was held in said county after the passage of the act of the Legislature fixing a felony punishment for a violation of the law. We have quite uniformly held that we cannot take judicial cognizance of the existence of such law in the several counties, but that proof of same must be made. Before the punishment of confinement in the penitentiary can be assessed for a violation of this law, it must appear that local option has been carried in the county where the prosecution is pending subsequently to the passage of the act making the violation of same a felony. See Lewis v. State, 127 S. W. 808. See, also, Coy v. State, 128 S. W. 414.
For the error pointed out, the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded for proceedings in accordance with law.