Case Name: J. L. Tippitt v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1908-03-20
Citations: 53 Tex. Crim. 302
Docket Number: No. 4352
Parties: J. L. Tippitt v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 53
Pages: 302–303

Head Matter:
J. L. Tippitt v. The State.
No. 4352.
Decided March 20, 1908.
Local Option—Different Elections.
Upon trial for a violation of the local option law, it was no defense that a subsequent election to the first election (both resulting in prohibition) occurred, and that the latter election abrogated the first election upon which the prosecution was based. Following Massie v. State, 52 Texas Grim., 548.
Appeal from the County Court of Haskell. Tried below before the Hon. Joe Irby.
Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the local option law; penalty a fine of $75, and forty days confinement in the -county jail.
The opinion states the case.
[Motion for rehearing overruled without written opinion.—Reporter.]
Helton & Murchison, for appellant.
Appellant was indicted for a violation of the local option law which was put in force and effect by virtue of an election held in Haskell County in March, 1905. On trial of the cause in the county court appellant offered to introduce in evidence the records of a subsequent election held in August, 1907, which resulted in favor of local option, for the purpose of showing that the first election held in 1905 had been superseded and abrogated by the last election. Bryd v. State, 51 Texas Crim. Rep., 539; 103 S. W. Rep., page 864.
F. J. McCord, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
BBOOKS, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $75 and forty days confinement in the county jail.
The statement of facts shows that an election was held on the 25th day of March, 1905, to determine whether or not the sale of intoxicating liquors should be prohibited. Appellant offered in evidence the orders showing a subsequent election, and upon this statement asked the court to charge the jury that said election repealed the former law, and this being true they will find defendant not guilty. This is not correct. See Dick Massie v. State, decided at the present term. The facts in the ease show a clear sale, and violation of the law.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.