Case Name: SZYMANSKI v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-02-07
Citations: 248 S.W. 380
Docket Number: No. 7370
Parties: SZYMANSKI v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 248
Pages: 380–381

Head Matter:
SZYMANSKI v. STATE.
(No. 7370.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 7, 1923.
Rehearing Denied March 14, 1923.)
1. Intoxicating liquors <§=>236(20) — Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction of transportation of intoxicating liquors.
Evidence held sufficient to support conviction for offense of transporting intoxicating liquors.
2. intoxicating liquors <®=»l38 — Pecuniary or proprietary interest in liquor being unlawfully transported held not essential to convict.
It is not indispensable to a conviction of the offense of transporting intoxicating liquors that the transporter of the liquor have any pecuniary interest in it, or that he exercise any claim of ownership, or that he have the custody thereof.
On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Criminal law <§=3459 — Opinion evidence that liquor was intoxicating held competent and sufficient to sustain finding.
Testimony of state witnesses in prosecution for transportation of intoxicating liquors, after having qualified as to their knowledge and experience and having examined, smelled, and tasted the liquor, that the liquor was intoxicating, held competent evidence and sufficient to sustain finding that liquor was intoxicating.
4. Intoxicating liquors <§=»I67 — Driver of car knowing companion is transporting intoxicating liquor is guilty of transporting it.
One with knowledge of the fact that a passenger in his car, or one who is riding therein, is transporting intoxicating liquor, cannot escape liability by pleading that he was merely the driver of the car and that another person had the cafe and control and custody of the liquor.
Appeal from District Court, Brazos County; W. C. Davis, Judge.
Louis Szymanski was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquors, and appeals.
Affirmed.
Buffington & Leigh, of Anderson, and Henderson & Ranson, of Bryan, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Brazos county of transporting intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of one year.
Appellant raises a number of questions in various ways in the record, each complaint in which has been carefully examined; but all of the legal questions raised have been settled by decisions of this court on exactly similar questions, adversely to the contentions made by appellant and no good purpose will be served by any discussion of them in this opinion.
Appellant complains that the testimony is insufficient to support the verdict It is shown by testimony that on the date alleged in the indictment appellant and a man named Prescott and a couple of negroescame by the home of a witness who lived about four miles from College Station in Brazos county. They had some car trouble. The witness near whose home said party came went down to-the scene and rendered some assistance, and Prescott tried to induce him to drink some whisky, which he said they had there in the car, and told him that if he wanted it he was as welcome to it as the flowers of May. Quite a bit of conversation in regard to the whisky was testified to by this witness. The conversation was had in the presence of appellant. After fixing up the car the party drove on, appellant driving. The witness then telephoned to the sheriff, and the officer went out and searched the car in question and found in it a half-gallon jug of whisky and a half-gallon jar of whisky. The jug was in a sack between the seats and the jar was under the back seat.' Appellant's defense was that he was requested by Prescott to drive him in said car on the day in question. He disclaimed any connection with the whisky. We do.not think it indispensable to a conviction that the transporter of whisky have any pecuniary interest in it, or that he exercise any claim of ownership, or that he have the custody thereof. If it be conceded that there was no' testimony to show that appellant knew there was whisky in the car which he was driving, until the conversation had with the witness first above mentioned, still there-could be no seeming claim that he did not know after that that he was driving a car in which there was whisky. The trial court submitted the issue fairly to the jury, instructing them upon the law of principals, and telling them that unless they believed beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant, either alone or acting with Prescott, transported the liquor in question, he should be found not guilty.
We are unable to agree with appellant's-contention that the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict, and an affirmance is-ordered.
@=>For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes