Case Name: ROSENTHAL v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-04-30
Citations: 262 S.W. 81
Docket Number: No. 8449
Parties: ROSENTHAL v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 262
Pages: 81–82

Head Matter:
ROSENTHAL v. STATE.
(No. 8449.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 30, 1924.
Rehearing Denied June 4, 1924.)
1. Criminal law <®=»978 — Act denying suspended sentence to defendant over 25, violating liquor law, valid.
Acts 37th Leg., 1st Called Sess. (1921) c. 61 (Yernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588%et seq.), in denying benefit of suspended sentence to persons over 25 years old convicted of violating the liquor law, is not unconstitutional.
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Statutes <S=»I41 (I)— Suspended sentence law not attempted to be amended by reference to title only.
Acts 37th Leg., 1st Called Sess. (1921) c. 61 (Vernon’s Ann Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588% et seq.), denying to persons convicted of violating liquor law, who were over 25 years old, benefit of suspended sentence, held not to attempt to amend suspended sentence' law by reference to title only.
Appeal from District Court, Milam County ; John Watson, Judge.
H. Rosenthal was convicted of violating the liquor law, and appeals.
Affirmed.
Chambers, Wallace & Gillis, of Cameron, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover O. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The offense is the manufacture of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.
Possessed of a search warrant, officers searched the home of the appellant. Several gallons of whisky and also apparatus for making intoxicating liquors were found so circumstantiated as to support his conviction.
Appellant was 49 years of age, and the court did not err in refusing to submit to the jury the issue of the suspended sentence. An interesting presentation of the validity of the legislation limiting the privilege of the jury to Suspend the sentence to persons not over -25 years of age is found in the argument and brief of counsel. However, we are constrained to adhere to the conclusion favoring the validity of that law expressed in Davis v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 192, 246 S. W. 395.
The judgment is affirmed.
<Sx^>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER m all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes