Case Name: MUSGROVE v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1953-12-02
Citations: 265 S.W.2d 820
Docket Number: No. 26667
Parties: MUSGROVE v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 265
Pages: 820–825

Head Matter:
MUSGROVE v. STATE.
No. 26667.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 2, 1953.
Rehearing Denied March 3, 1954.
James E. Faulkner, Coldspring, .for appellant
Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MORRISON, Judge..
The offense is the sale of whiskey in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $1,000.
Inspector Jurek of the Liquor Control. Board testified that he went to the appellant's place on the Trinity River in San Jacinto County on the day in question and asked the appellant if he had any Canadian Club whiskey; that he answered in the negative but said that he had Hill & Hill and Sunnybrook; whereupon he bought two pints labeled Sunnybrook from him.
The State introduced one pint' bottle labeled "Sunnybrook Whiskey," to which was affixed an unbroken tax stamp, and another pint similarly labeled with broken seal and about %rds full of liquid. The witness testified that an informer who had gone with him to make the purchase had drunk from the bottle.
The State introduced in evidence from the minutes of the Commissioners Court of San Jacinto County an order dated February 12, 1917, calling a prohibition election, an order of March 21, 1917, declaring the results of the election and ordering the publication of such results favoring prohibition, together with the affidavit of the publisher reciting the publication of such order.
Appellant did not testify in his own behalf and offered only one witness, another inspector of the Liquor Control Board, by whom he sought to attack the validity of the complaint in this case.
We find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction.
Appellant objected to the proof of the dry status of San Jacinto County. As we understand his contention, it is that, since the prohibition election was held in 1917, such was not effective because the same was held prior to the adoption of Section 20 of Article 16 of the Constitution of this State in 1919. Vernon's Ann.St. It has been the consistent holding of this Court that areas in which the sale of intoxicants had been prohibited by local option elections held prior to the taking effect of the amendment in 1919 retained their dry status upon the adoption of Section 20 of Article 16 in 1935. Stephens v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 43, 133 S.W.2d 130. We see no reason to disturb these holdings.
Appellant objected to the introduction of the two bottles in evidence on the grounds that the contents were not identified.
In Bouldin v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 413, 168 S.W.2d 868, we held that where the purchaser asked for whiskey, the appellant delivered something in a bottle and received payment that such acts were admissions of the accused that the liquid was whiskey in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The labels on the bottle were admissible as evidence that the bottles contained whiskey. Adair v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 246 S.W.2d 211, and Ferguson v. State, 133 Tex.Cr.R. 250, 110 S.W.2d 61.
Appellant complains of jury argument which he contends constituted a reference to the appellant's failure to testify. The bills of exception do not recite, and it is not clear from the record, that there were no other witnesses who might have testified concerning the sale of whiskey by the appellant. No reversible error is shown by such bill. Hammond v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 641, 137 S.W.2d 1025.
Appellant requested a charge relative to the question of venue. The fact that the sale might have been made in San Jacinto County but near the county line would have been no defense to the charge.
Appellant complains that, though represented by counsel, he was not personally present at the time the trial court overruled his motion for new trial. There was no showing as to- why he was not present, and since only a fine was imposed on the original trial no error is shown.
Appellant relies upon Henderson v. State, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 18, 127 S.W.2d 902. In that case a term in jail was assessed upon the trial, and we held it necessary that the accused be present up on the hearing on the motion for new trial because of the provisions of Article 580, C.C.P.
Appellant claims reversible error is reflected by the action of the County Attorney in reading the complaint to the jury.
The record fails to affirmatively reflect that the complaint was ever read to the jury. The prosecutor did cross-examine the defense witness from the complaint. This we think was proper in view of the direct examination 'by the appellant.
Appellant has filed a 59-page brief in this case. We cannot discuss each question sought to be raised.
We have examined the record carefully and fail to find any reversible error.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.