Case Name: GREEN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-03-12
Citations: 259 S.W. 582
Docket Number: No. 8037
Parties: GREEN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 259
Pages: 582–582

Head Matter:
GREEN v. STATE.
(No. 8037.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 12, 1924.)
Intoxicating liquors &wkey;>i38— If defendant with- • out personal profit secured liquor for another for medicinal purposes, held not guilty of transporting.
If prosecuting witness, requiring whisky for medicinal purposes, requested defendant to purchase it, and defendant, acting purely as the agent of prosecuting witness, and without personal profit, procured the whisky from another, defendant should be acquitted of charge of transporting liquor.
Appeal from District Court, Bee County; R. J. Alexander, Judge.
Tod Green was convicted of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Reversed, and cause remanded.
E. T. Simmang, of Giddings, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. .Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for -the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The offense is-unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the' penitentiary for one year.
According to the testimony of -the state witness Poster, appellant, at his request, procured and brought to him a pint of whis-ky, Poster furnishing the money. There is testimony that appellant's act was purely for the accommodation of Poster, and without profit to himself. Poster testified that he desired to obtain and use the whisky as medicine.
Appellant, by an exception to the main charge and by a special charge, sought to have the jury instructed that, if, in fact, Poster, requiring the whisky for medicinal purposes, requested the appellant to purchase it, and appellant, acting purely as Poster's agent, and without personal profit, procured the whisky from another and brought it to Poster, a verdict of not guilty should have resulted. The state's counsel concedes that in declining to amend his charge in accord with this view the learned trial judge was in error. The cases in point are Mayo v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 624, 245 S. W. 241; White v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 332, 247 S. W. 557.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause. remanded.