Case Name: I. Alf Hughes v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-02-07
Citations: 99 Tex. Crim. 244
Docket Number: No. 7413
Parties: I. Alf Hughes v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 99
Pages: 244–247

Head Matter:
FEBRUARY, 1923.
I. Alf Hughes v. The State.
No. 7413.
Delivered February 7, 1923.
Rehearing denied February 7, 1923.
Rehearing granted and cause reversed February 11, 1925.
1. —Transporting Intoxicating liquors — Liquor Laws — Held Constitutional.
The liquor laws of this state, including the law under which this prosecution is brought, have so many times been held constitutional and valid by this court, as well as by the Supreme Court of the United States that we deem it unnecessary to cite authorities. The Supreme Court of the United States on January 8, 1923, dismissed several writs of error, declining to consider this question.
2. —Same—Search Warrant — Unnecessary—When.
Where a witness was permitted to testify that upon searching appellant’s ■automobile, while appellant was under arrest, whisky was found, but such officer had no search warrant, no error is shown. See Welchek, v. State, No. 7136.
ON SECOND REHEARING.
3. — Same—Charge of Court — On Weight of Evidence.
Where the court charged the jury that if they believed “that the whisky found by the officer in the defendant’s car” etc. such charge was upon the weight of the evidence, and reversible error. There was a sharp conflict in the evidence as to whether the bottle found in the car of appellant contained whisky. This charge assumes that the appellant had whisky in his car. For this error the cause is reversed.
Appeal from tbe District Court of Morris County. Tried below before tbe Hon. R. T. 'Wilkinson, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for transporting intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year in tbe penitentiary.
Tbe opinion states the case.
Henderson & Bolin, and Lloyd W. Davidson, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
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 Texas Crim. Rep., 529, 228 S. W. Rep., 199, this question has been so frequently decided adversely to the contention that we deem it unnecessary to cite the eases, save the two cases of Clyde Chandler v. State, 89 Texas Crim. Rep., 308, 232 S. W. Rep., 336, and 89 Texas Crim. Rep., 599, 232 S. W. Rep., 337, and the two cases of John Chandler v. State, 89 Texas Crim. Rep., 306, 232 S. W. Rep., 317 and 89 Texas Crim. Rep., 308, 232 S. W. Rep., 336. The same contentions here urged were relied on in the four cases last cited. Not being satisfied with the holding cf this court, writs of error to the United States Supreme Court were applied for and granted. That Court, on January 8, 1923, dismissed said cases, 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, whiskey was found, but that such officer had no search warrant. Under authority of Welchek v. State, (No. 7136) 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 can not intelligently pass upon questions raised relative to the charge given, nor to those refused.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.