Case Name: WAITS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1914-12-02
Citations: 171 S.W. 708
Docket Number: No. 3342
Parties: WAITS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 171
Pages: 708–708

Head Matter:
WAITS v. STATE.
(No. 3342.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 2, 1914.)
Intoxicating- Liquoks (§ 236 ) — Offenses— Business or Selling Intoxicants.
In a prosecution for engaging in the business of selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory, evidence held sufficient to support a conviction.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 300-322; Dec. Dig. § 236. ]
Appeal from District Court, Cherokee County; L. D. Guinn, Judge.
Andrew Waits was convicted of unlawfully-engaging in the business or occupation of selling intoxicants in prohibition territory, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes-

Opinion:
BRENDERGAST, P. J.
Appellant was convicted for unlawfully engaging in the business or occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory.
The sole question in the case is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict. We have carefully read the evidence. It shows that prohibition had been, some time before the offense is alleged to have been committed, and was at the time, in force in Cherokee county. The uncontra-dicted testimony shows that appellant, within the course of a few months, made three separate and distinct sales of whisky (two of them to one party and one to another); that during the latter part of the period wherein he was charged with the commission of the offense, and before the indictment was filed herein, in the course of 2% months, he received five shipments of whisky through one of the express companies (4 quarts 3 distinct times, 2% at another, and 6 at another). No complaint whatever is made of the court's charge. The evidence was sufficient under the law and the charge to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty, and the court below was also of that opinion, and in our opinion it is sufficient. Hence this court cannot disturb the verdict.
The judgment is affirmed.