Case Name: ARCHBELL v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-04-02
Citations: 260 S.W. 867
Docket Number: No. 8157
Parties: ARCHBELL v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 260
Pages: 867–868

Head Matter:
ARCHBELL v. STATE.
(No. 8157.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 2, 1924.
Rehearing Denied April 30, 1924.)
1. Criminal law <&wkey;826, 1086(14) — Requested instructions must be presented before reading of main charge.
■ Under Yernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proe. 1916, arts. 735, 737a, and 743, requested instructions must be presented to court before main charge is read to jury, and where record does not show that they were so presented they cannot be considered.
2. Intoxicating liquors &wkey;s236(ll) — Evidence held not to show sale for medicinal purpose.
In a prosecution for the unlawful sale of whisky, evidence that the purchaser had represented to defendant that he had been drunk, was sick, and in need of a stimulant, held not to show a sale for medicinal purposes, within the statutory and constitutional exception.
On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Intoxicating liquors &wkey;>239(2) — Requested instructions as to defendant’s liability for a sale for medicinal purposes, induced by representations of the purchaser that he was sick, held properly denied.
Requested instructions, in prosecution for unlawful sale of whisky, that if purchaser had falsely represented that he was sick, and thereby induced defendant to sell or give the whisky for medicinal purposes, he should be acquitted, helé properly denied as unwarranted by evidence, wherein defendant both denied the sale and admitted receipt of money from purchasers with which to replace the whisky.
—.Fnr other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
Appeal from District Court, Harrison County; P. O. Beard, Judge.
- Claud Archbell was convicted of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
'Affirmed.
H. T. Lyttleton and John Jasper, both of Marshall, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor is the offense; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of three years.
Collins, the purchaser named in the indictment, testified that he went to the home of the appellant and bought a pint oí whisky, for which he paid him $2; that the appellant went out the back- door of his house and to a bridge; that he took some whisky out from under the bridge and handed it to Collins, who paid him 'thei*efor. Other witnesses who were near by corroborated the testimony of Collins.
Appellant testified that he was sick; that he kept whisky on hand as medicine; that the doctor had prescribed it; that, according to the representation of Collins, he had been on the drunk, was sick, and needed a drink of whisky. Appellant yielded to the impor-tunities of Collins and agreed to let him have a pint of whisky and received from him $1.-50, the understanding being that appellant would use the $1.50 to replace the whisky for his own use.
Appellant prepared a special charge suggesting that the court inform the jury that if the appellant let Collins have the whisky upon the belief from Collins' statement that he was sick, there should be an acquittal ; also, a special charge to the effect that the law did not look with favor upon the conduct of the officers in encouraging the commission of the crime, and that if Collins was so engaged and misrepresented himself to be sick and needed whisky for medicine, and that under these circumstances it was furnished him, there should be an acquittal. Neither in the charges nor in the bill complaining of their refusal is it made to appear that they were presented to the trial court before the main charge was read to the jury. This is required by the Code of Criminal Procedure. See articles 735, 737a, 743, Vernon's Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916; also, Jones v. State, 74 Tex. Cr. R. 205, 167 S. W. 1110; Lopez v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. R. 624, 166 S. W. 154; Bedford v. State, 75 Tex. Cr. R. 309, 170 S. W. 727; Vernon's Tex. Crim. Stat. vol. 2, p. 525, note 63; page 526, note 64; Alsup v. State, 85 Tex. Cr. R. 36, 210 S. W. 195; Lee v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 532, 204 S. W. 110; Payne v. State, 84 Tex. Cr. R. 2, 204 S. W. 765; Green v. State, 84 Tex. Cr. R. 162, 205 S. W. 988.
Appellant filed an exception to the court's charge upon the ground that it failed to embrace in its charge an instruction to ,the effect that if the appellant merely consented to let Collins have a pint of whisky because the appellant was told by Collins that he had been drinking, was sick, and in need of a stimulant, an acquittal should result. It is true that in both the Constitution and in the statute there'is an exception in favor of the "sale of intoxicating liquors for medicinal purposes,'' and in a case where that issue is pertinently raised by the evidence, it is incumbent upon the court to submit it to the jury. The evidence in the present case, however, to the effect that the witness Collins had been drunk and was sick because of the need of a stimulant,, is not deemed such a state of facts as would justify the sale under the exception mentioned. Tfhe purpose for which, according to the appellant, Collins wanted the whisky, would be more properly denominated for "beverage purpose" than for "medicinal purpose."
Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.