Case Name: Buck Sparks v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-03-08
Citations: 91 Tex. Crim. 239
Docket Number: No. 6735
Parties: Buck Sparks v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 91
Pages: 239–240

Head Matter:
Buck Sparks v. The State.
No. 6735.
Decided March 8, 1922.
Intoxicating Liquor—Sale—Local Option Law—Repeal.
The section of our Constitution under which Local Option statutes, with reference to intoxicating liquors were voted into existence was repealed by the constitutional amendment adopted May 24, 1919, effective July 3, 1919, and the judgment must be reversed and the cause dismissed. Following Cone v. State, 90 Texas Grim. Rep., 489, 236 S. W. Rep., 486.
Appeal from the District Court of Hopkins. Tried below before the Honorable Geo. B. Hall.
Appe/al from a conviction of selling intoxicating liquor in local option territory; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
L. Old, for appellant.—
Cited casescases in opinion.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
—This is an appeal from the District Court of Hopkins County in which appellant was convicted for selling liquor in violation of the local option law, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.
The indictment alleges the adoption of the local option law in Hopkins County in 1901, and that it was in force in said county in September, 1919, at which time it was further alleged that appellant unlawfully engaged in, pursued and followed the occupation of selling liquor in said county in violation of said law. Appellant made a motion to quash the indictment based on the fact that by the constitutional amendment adopted May 24, 1919, and made effective by proclamation July 3, 1919, that the section of our Constitution under which local option statutes were voted into existence, was repealed, and that consequently there was no such local option law in existence when this indictment was returned and at the date of the charge therein laid. The exact question was discussed and decided in favor of appellant's contention in Cone v. State, 90 Texas Crim. Rep. 489, 236 S. W. Rep. 486. The matter here involved is fully stated and discussed in said opinion and need not now be repeated by us. For the reasons therein given this judgment will be reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
Reversed and dismissed.