Case Name: INNESS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1926-12-15
Citations: 293 S.W. 821
Docket Number: No. 10351
Parties: INNESS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 293
Pages: 821–822

Head Matter:
INNESS v. STATE.
(No. 10351.)
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 15, 1926.
Rehearing Denied April 27, 1927.
Sanders & Sánders, of Center, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for tbe State.

Opinion:
BETHEA, J.
The appellant was convicted in the district court of Shelby county of unlawfully driving an automobile upon a public street while under tbe influence of intoxicating liquor, and bis punishment assessed at a fine of $350.'
The record in this case discloses that tbe appellant drove an automobile from tbe direction of Shelbyville street in tbe town of Center to a point in front of the courthouse, and there stopped bis car. He stopped bis car on the public square across the street just opposite tbe courthouse on tbe East side of the square. At tbe time be was driving said car be was drunk.
Tbe charging part of tbe indictment in tbis case reads as follows:
"Did then and there unlawfully while under the influence of intoxicating liquors drive and operate an automobile upon a public street within the limits of an incorporated town, to wit, the public square, within the limits of the incorporated town of Center, Shelby county, Tex., against the peace and dignity. of the state."
Appellant's first bill of exceptions complains that tbe trial court erred in not quashing the above indictment. Tbe term public square is' usually applied to land on which a courthouse is erected. In this state there are few county sites in which there is not set apart a certain block, part, or parcel of land designated as tbe "public square," and they are generally intended as sites for tbe erection of courthouses. That part of a public square used by tbe public to move about on, either on foot or in automobiles, buggies, wagons, and other vehicles, constitutes, and is, a public highway. Bouvier defines a "street" as "a public thoroughfare or highway in a city or village." It follows, therefore, that a public street or public square are one and tbe same, being used interchangeably and synonymously. We therefore hold that tbe learned trial judge was correct in overruling appellant's motion to quash said indictment.
Appellant's bill of exceptions No. 3 is nothing more nor less than a repetition of his objections and exceptions to tbe court's main charge. We have carefully reviewed said charge, and find tbe same a correct enunciation of the principles of law involved in this case as well as a full and complete submission of all the issues raised by the facts.
There being no errors in the record, and the facts being amply sufficient to support the verdict, the judgment is affirmed.
PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.