Case Name: PUTMAN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-10-08
Citations: 266 S.W. 510
Docket Number: No. 8040
Parties: PUTMAN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 266
Pages: 510–511

Head Matter:
PUTMAN v. STATE.
(No. 8040.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 8, 1924.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 17, 1924.)
Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;239(3) — Evidence warranted instruction authorizing conviction if defendant was agent of seller.
Where defendant contended that he could not be convicted for selling liquor as he was accommodation agent for buyer, evidence warranted further instruction authorizing conviction if he was acting as agent of seller.
Appeal from District Court, Hill County; Horton B. Porter, Judge.
Mark Putman was convicted of selling whisky, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Collins, Dupree & Crenshaw, of Hillsboro, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Conviction is for selling whisky, punishment three years in the penitentiary.
Error is alleged upon a charge authorizing conviction if appellant acted as the agent of a certain party as the seller, it being claimed that the evidence failed to raise such an issue. If the issue was not raised it was erroneous to submit an instruction thereon. See Harris v. State, 49 Tex. Cr R. 233, 91 S. W 590; Brewster v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. R. 474, 145 S. W 339; Thomas v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. R. 472, 147 S. W. 578; Cowley v. State, 72 Tex. Cr. R. 173, 161 S. W. 471. But we are not able to agree with appellant's contention in this regard. Appellant' accounted for his presence at the point where the negotiations were carried on by claiming a message had been delivered to him requesting him to come; this was denied by the state's witnesses. Appellant by his own evidence, appeared to know in what character of containers the alleged seller would have the whisky, advising that a half-gallon was the least amount, and that no smaller bottles could be obtained. He also claimed that the alleged purchaser gave him $10 in advance which he paid for the half-gallon of liquor; this was controverted by the purchaser who testified that he paid the $10 to appellant at the time the whisky was delivered. We have not attempted to set out all the facts, but have reached the conclusion that under all the evidence the court was justified in permitting the jury to determine what appellant's real relation to the whisky was — that is, whether a straight seller, or an agent for the real seller,- or only an accommodation agent for the buyer. These various issues seem to have been properly submitted.
The judgment is affirmed.
<&wkey;>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes