Case Name: HURST v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1929-03-20
Citations: 17 S.W.2d 818
Docket Number: No. 12393
Parties: HURST v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 17
Pages: 818–819

Head Matter:
HURST v. STATE.
(No. 12393.)
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 20, 1929.
Rehearing Granted May 8, 1929.
Ramey & Davidson, of Sulphur Springs, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Conviction for possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale; punishment, three years in the penitentiary. Complaints are made of the insufficiency of the testimony and of the court's charge on principals. We have carefully examined the testimony and think it amply sufficient. Appellant rented for the year 1928 a piece of land containing about 30 acres, having on- it a store, a filling station, and a residence. The circumstances in evidence amply justified the jury in concluding that appellant operated the store, notwithstanding the fact that his young son's name appeared on the sign on same. This son is referred to by a number of witnesses, each one calling him a "little boy." On the occasion in question officers watching saw one Ramey come to the store and enter it, and almost at once appellant's little boy came out of the store, went down to a point where he picked up a pint bottle having a white fluid in it, put it in his bosom, and went back to the store. The officers followed, and saw Ramey throw a bottle under the back end of the store, which, upon being possessed by them, was found to contain white corn whisky. At the point where the little boy picked up the bottle, a tow sack was found with 10 other pint bottles of white corn whisky in it. In the store were found a number of empty pint bottles, each appearing to have had some liquid in them. A number of fruit jars, with dirt and mud clinging to them, showing that they had been buried in the earth, were also found. A drummer, who was the only defense witness, in his testimony referred to the store as "Clarence Hurst's store"; Clarence Hurst being appellant. He also referred to the fact that he had sold him goods, referring to Clarence Hurst.
The court's charge on principals is in form correct, and as part of same he instructed the jury the converse thereof. Our statutes in many instances provide heavy punishment for parents who instigate or aid or abet their children in the commission of crimes, and we would be in much doubt as to the necessity for giving a charge on principals in a case such as this, where the parent was present, running the business, and in the store waiting on customers, on the occasion of the raid in question, when the officers found near the store, and on premises rented and occupied by appellant, the quantity of whisky indicated.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.