Case Name: PARITA v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1916-10-25
Citations: 189 S.W. 142
Docket Number: No. 4224
Parties: PARITA v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 189
Pages: 142–142

Head Matter:
PARITA v. STATE.
(No. 4224.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 25, 1916.)
Intoxicating Liquors <§=236(11) — Offense —Sufficiency of Evidence.
In a prosecution for violating the local option law, where the state’s witness testified to a sale of intoxicating liquor, which was denied by defendant, whose denial was supported by the testimony of a certain witness, the Court of Criminal Appeals will not reverse for insufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ '313-315; Dec. Dig. <@= 236(11).]
Appeal from District Court, Kleberg County; W. B. Hopkins, Judge.
Manuel Parita was convicted of violating the local option law, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Pope & Sutherland, of Corpus Christi, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, J.
Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law; his punishment being assessed at two years and six months confinement in the penitentiary.
The only question presented is the sufficiency of the facts. The state's witness Skipper swears to a sale of intoxicating liquor. This is denied by defendant, and he is supported by the testimony of a witness named Guest. Without discussing the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, the jury saw proper to believe the evidence for the state, and we would hardly be prepared to say it is not sufficient; at least, that the jury was authorized in reaching the conclusion they did reach.
There being nothing else in the record to consider, the judgment will be affirmed.-
<i=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes