Case Name: KING v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1933-11-15
Citations: 65 S.W.2d 772
Docket Number: No. 16121
Parties: KING v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 65
Pages: 772–773

Head Matter:
KING v. STATE.
No. 16121.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 15, 1933.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 20, 1933.
See, also. (Tex. Cr. App.) 65 S.W.(2d) 773.
Jno. M. Hatter, of Waxahachie, for appel- * lant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
KRUEGER, Judge.
The appellant was tried and convicted oí the offense of unlawfully selling a bottle of liquor capable of producing intoxication, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of one year.
The appellant filed a motion to quash the indictment because the indictment merely charged that the appellant "did then and there unlawfully sell to Joe Lee Wardlaw one bottle of liquor capable'of producing intoxication," and did not expressly follow Article 666 of the Penal Code which makes it an offensq to sell spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors of medicated bitters capable of producing intoxication, and that the state ha» wholly failed to charge the kind of liquor defendant is alleged to have sold whether it was spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors or medicated bitters, which motion of the appellant was by the court overruled and the appellant excepted.
Article 666 of the Penal Code of this state makes it an offense for any person to manufacture, sell, barter, exchange, transport, export, deliver, take orders for, or furnish spirituous, vmous, or malt liquors or medicated bitters capable of producing intoxication, or any other intoxicant whatever. It appears to us that from a reading of the statute that the indictment charges the offense of selling liquor capable of producing intoxication, and in support hereof we refer to the cases of Tucker v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 505, 251 S. W. 1090; Nowells v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 571, 252 S. W. 550.
No other question being raised and no error appearing in the record before us, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
PER CTJRIAM.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.