Case Name: Elgin Ramsey v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-05-09
Citations: 94 Tex. Crim. 429
Docket Number: No. 7444
Parties: Elgin Ramsey v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 94
Pages: 429–431

Head Matter:
Elgin Ramsey v. The State.
No. 7444.
Decided May 9, 1923.
* 1. — Intoxicating Liquor — Transportation—Continuance.
Where,, the application for continuance showed that the absent witnesses resided in another State and had assured defendant that they would voluntarily appear and testify for him, this presented no excuse for not taking the depositions of said witnesses in accordance with law, and the evidence being sufficient to support the conviction, there is no no reversible error.
2. — Rehearing—Indictment—Constitutional Law.
The contention of appellant that the amendment to the Dean Law, Act of the Thirty-seventh Legislature, is unconstitutional is untenable. In the enactment of said law the Legislature saw fit to put the restrictive regulation upon the manufacture, sale, etc., of such liquors for said excepted purposes, etc., and the indictment is sufficient.
Appeal from the District Court of Titus. Tried below before the Honorable R. T. Wilkinson.
Appeal from a conviction of transporting intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
I. N. Williams and B. B. Sturgeon, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Titus County of transporting intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.
The indictment in this case was returned on January 6, 1922, and the case was called for trial in June of said year. Appellant then presented an application for continuance based on the absence of two witnesses, one of whom was alleged to live in Arkansas and the other in Louisiana. It is stated that both of said witnesses had assured appellant that they would voluntarily come and testify in his behalf. Such representation affords no justification of reliance thereon and presents no excuse for not taking the deposition of said witnesses in accordance with our statute. The testimony is ample to show that appellant was driving a car in which there was a large quantity of liquor on the occasion in question. A car accident revealed the presence of said liquor. Appellant' fled. The evidence supports the verdict.
Finding no error in the record, an affirmance is ordered.
Affirmed.