Case Name: HUGHES v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-02-07
Citations: 268 S.W. 960
Docket Number: No. 7413
Parties: HUGHES v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 268
Pages: 960–962

Head Matter:
HUGHES v. STATE.
(No. 7413.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 7, 1923.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 12, 1924.
Rehearing Granted Feb. 11, 1925.)
1. Intoxicating liquors <§=>13, 132 — State statute, denouncing unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor, held not in conflict with United States Constitution and act of Congress thereunder.
State statute, prohibiting the transportation of intoxicating liquor, held not unconstitutional because in conflict with United States Constitution and act of Congress thereunder.
2. Criminal law <§=>394 — Evidence, procured in search without warrant of defendant’s automobile when defendant was under arrest, held admissible.
In liquor prosecution, testimony that whis-ky was found in searching defendant’s automobile without search warrant while defendant was under arrest, held admissible.
3. Criminal law <§=>1097(5) — Questions as to court’s charge not considered in absence of statement of facts in record.
Bills of exception, relating to court’s charge and refusal of requested special charges, will not be considered in absence of statement of facts in the record.
On Second Motion for Rehearing.
4. Criminal law <§=>761 (6) — Instruction held to assume fact in issue.
In liquor prosecution involving issue as to whether the liquor found in defendant’s possession was whisky, instruction submitting question of whether “the whisky found by the oflicer in defendant’s car” was being transported, held improper, in that it assumed that the liquor was whisky.
5. Criminal law <§=>459, 493 — <Opinion of oflicer that liquor had whisky odor held competent but not conclusive as to character of liquor.
Testimony of oflicer, who stated that he was acquainted with the odor of whisky; that the liquor found in defendant’s possession had such an odor; and that in his judgment the liquor was whisky, held competent but not conclusive.
6. Intoxicating liquors <§=>238(3) — Whether liquor found in defendant’s possession was whisky held for jury.
In prosecution for transportation of liquor, question as to whether liquor found in defendant’s possession was whisky held for jury.
Appeal from District Court, Morris County; R. T. Wilkinson, Judge.
I. Alf Hughes was convicted of the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Henderson & Bolin, of Daingerfield, and Dial, Melson, Davidson, & Brim, of Sulphur Springs, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Conviction is for unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor, with punishment assessed at one year's confinement in the penitentiary.
Motion to quash the indictment was presented upon the ground that the law under which the prosecution proceeded was unconstitutional and unenforceable as being in conflict with the Constitution of the United States and the act of Congress thereunder. Since the decision in Ex parte Gilmore, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 529, 228 S. W. 199, this' question has been so frequently decided adversely to the contention that we deem it unnecessary to cite the cases, save the two cases of Clyde Chandler v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 308, 232 S. W. 336, and 89 Tex. Cr. R. 599, 232 S. W. 337, and the two cases of John Chandler v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 306, 232 S. W. 317, and 89 Tex. Cr. R. 308, 232 S. W. 336. The same contentions here urged were relied on in the four cases last cited. Not being satisfied with .the holding of this court, writs of error to the United States Supreme Court were applied for and granted. That court on January 3, 1923, dismissed said eases (260 U. S. 708, 43 S. Ct. 247, 67 L. Ed. 474), declining to consider the questions raised.
The first bill of exception complains that a state witness was permitted to testify that upon searching appellant's automobile while appellant was under arrest whisky was found, but that such officer had no search warrant. Under authority of Welchek v. State (No. 7136) 93 Tex. Cr. E. 271, 247 S. W. 524, the objection was not tenable.
All other questions presented by bills of exception relate to the charge of the court and to the refusal to give certain special charges. No statement of facts is in the record, and obviously, in its absence, we cannot intelligently pass upon questions raised relative to the charge given, nor to those refused.
Einding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
dfcmFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes