Case Name: WALES v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-04-16
Citations: 212 S.W. 503
Docket Number: No. 5315
Parties: WALES v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 212
Pages: 503–504

Head Matter:
(85 Tex. Cr. R. 391)
WALES v. STATE.
(No. 5315.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 16, 1919.
On Motion for Rehearing, June 4, 1919.)
1. Intoxicating Liquors <&wkey;223(5) — Evidence-Time oe Sale.
The evidence must show that defendant’s illegal sale of intoxicating malt liquor occurred prior to the filing of the indictment therefor.
2. Intoxicating Liquors &wkey;>236(l) — Sale Without License — Evidence—License.
In a prosecution for the selling of malt intoxicating liquor without license, a showing only by witness’ belief that defendant did not have a license is insufficient to sustain a conviction; the statute requiring a license for the selling of malt drinks, both intoxicating and nonintoxicating.
3. Intoxicating Liquors &wkey;>236(13) — Sale Without License — Evidence as to the Liquor Being Intoxicating.
In a prosecution for the selling of intoxicating malt liquor without license, where the witnesses testified they did not know whether the liquor was intoxicating or not, the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Appeal from Galveston County Court, at Law; J. C. Canty, Judge.
Willie Wales was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors, as a retail malt dealer, in quantities of one gallon or less, without having first procured a license therefor, and appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Turnley & Clark, of Houston, for appellant.
E. A. Berry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
Appellant was charged with selling intoxicating liquors, as a retail malt dealer, in quantities of one gallon or less, without having first procured a license for such purpose, and did sell one bottle of beer to E. Herrin.
There are some very interesting questions raised; but, as we view the statement of facts, the state has failed to make a case. It was agreed that local option was not in force in Galveston county, where this transaction is alleged to have occurred. Herrin testified that on - day of-, 1917, he was in defendant's place of business in the evening or night, it being after 9 o'clock and about 11 o'clock. He found defendant in an upstairs room at No. - street in the City of Galvesto'n, Galveston county. He requested appellant to sell him a bottle of beer, which he did, and witness paid him - for it and drank. it. He said: "I asked him for beer, and he gave it to me, and I paid him for it, and drank it." He did not know whether appellant had license or not. He believed he had none. Wern testified that he was in defendant's place of business on-day of-, 1917, with a friend, and requested two bottles of beer. Defendant handed them two bottles, and his friend paid for them, and he, witness, bought a bottle of beer, paying- cents for it. 1-Ie did not know whether appellant had license or not, but believed he did not have. Chief of Detectives Dave Henry testified that he was an officer of the city of Galveston, and was on the - day of -, 1917; that he went with a squad of officers to defendant's place on that night, and found several men there drinking; that they arrested several of them; that defendant at first refused to open his place, and after the officer threatened to break it open he did open it, and the officer says he found several cases of beer, some of it on ice, and some whisky. Herrin was recalled and testified:
"I supposed it was beer that' I bought. I could not say that it was intoxicating. I could not say it was or was not. I was once fooled by believing I was- drinking beer, and found out afterwards that it was near beer that I drank."
This is the statement of facts.
The indictment was returned in November, 1917, charging the transaction to have occurred on the 19th of August, 1917. The witnesses say they were in appellant's place of business on - day of -, 1917. This does not show whether before or after the indictment was returned, or whether before or after this transaction. The evidence must show that the transaction for which appellant was prosecuted occurred prior to the filing of the indictment. It may have occurred afterwards so far as this record is concerned. Nor is it shown, except by belief, that appellant did not have a license. Nor is it shown that what these parties say they bought and drank was intoxicating. Appellant was charged with selling intoxicating malt liquors, to wit, beer, to Herrin. Herrin did not know whether the liquor he drank was intoxicating or not. We cannot afford to sustain a conviction with-a statement of'facts presenting the case as this does. The statute provides for license to sell intoxicating liquors, and also for malt drinks that are intoxicating, and also provides for the issuance of license to sell malt drinks that are nonintoxicating. Issuance of license is a matter of record by comptroller and proper county officers, and could have been easily shown vel non. The state, having charged malt drinks to be intoxicating, should prove it; and the state was required alsq to prove other matters which were not proved, as above mentioned.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
<S=s>For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER In all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes