Case Name: COX v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-11-09
Citations: 234 S.W. 531
Docket Number: No. 6423
Parties: COX v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 234
Pages: 531–531

Head Matter:
COX v. STATE.
(No. 6423.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 9, 1921.)
Intoxicating liquors <S=»I32 — Dean Law held repealed in so far as it makes possession of equipment for making intoxicating liquor a erimos
Acts 37th Leg. 1st Called Session, 1021, e. 61, amending Acts 36th Leg. 2d Called Session, 1919, c. 78, §§ 1, 2, iheld to repeal section 1 in so far as it makes the possessing of equipment for making intoxicating liquor a crime, in view of Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code 1916, art. 16, the possessing of such equipment not being enumerated in the forbidden 'acts in the amending statute.
Appeal from District Court, Shelby County; Chas. L. Braehfield, Judge.
Frank Cox was convicted of possessing equipment for making intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Reversed, and case ordered dismissed.
D. R. Taylor and Sanders & Sanders, all of Center, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Shelby county of possessing equipment for making intoxicating liquor. But one question will be noticed.
Under section 1 of the Dean Law it was made penal to possess equipment for making spirituous, vinous, or malt liquor, or other intoxicant, and the prosecution and conviction herein was under said section 1. Said sections 1 and 2 were amended by what is chapter 61, Acts First Called Session, 37th Legislature. An examination of said amended statutes discloses that possession of such equipment' is not enumerated in the forbidden acts. This constitutes a repeal of the law under which appellant was convicted, and under our statutes and all of our decisions we have no option but to direct that this case be reversed and dismissed. Article 16, Vernon's P. C.; Holden v. State, 1 Tex. App. 225; Harold v. State, 16 Tex. App. 157; State v. Andrews, 20 Tex. 230; Chambers v. State, 25 Tex. 307.
The cause will be reversed and ordered dismissed.
—.Ti'nr other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes