Case Name: WHITE v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-12-10
Citations: 217 S.W. 389
Docket Number: No. 5560
Parties: WHITE v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 217
Pages: 389–389

Head Matter:
(86 Tex. Cr. R. 420)
WHITE v. STATE.
(No. 5560.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 10, 1919.
On Motion for Rehearing, Jan. 14, 1920.)
1. Criminal law <&wkey;1090(l) — Matters reviewable WITHOUT BILL OF EXCEPTIONS OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.
In the absence of a statement of facts or bills of exception, the only matters’ reviewable are the sufficiency of the indictment and the charge of the court.
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;205(2) — Allegations AS TO DATE OF OFFENSE NOT INSUFFICIENT.
An indictment for violating the local option law, alleging that on a certain date the sale of liquor had been prohibited in a certain county,that on that date defendant unlawfully engaged in the business of selling liquor, and that on a date more than a year later he made certain specific sales, without alleging that prohibition was still in effect, was not defective; the state not being bound by the specific dates alleged.
3. Indictment and information <&wkey;87(2) — ■ Date sufficient if prior to indictment AND WITHIN PERIOD OF LIMITATION.
The date of an offense is practically immaterial, provided the offense is alleged to have been committed prior to filing of the indictment and within the period of limitation.
Appeal from District Court, Smith County; J. R. Warren, Judge.
Joe White was convicted of violating the local option law, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
N. A. Gentry, Jr., of iTyler, for appellant.
Alvin M. Owsley, Ásst. Atty. Gen., for thp State.

Opinion:
DATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted, in the district court of Smith county, of violating the local option law, and given a penalty of five years in the penitentiary.
The case is before us without a statement of facts or bills 'of exception, and in such ease the only matters for our determination are the sufficiency of the indictment and of the charge of the court. We have examined both, and conclude that the indictment correctly charges that appellant engaged in the business and occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in' territory in which such sales had been fofibidden by a vote of the people; it b,eing alleged, in addition to the general charge,'that appellant made a number of distinct sales of such liquor.
The charge of the court is in conformity with the law, and, finding no error, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
<&wkey;For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes