Case Name: THOMAS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-05-16
Citations: 252 S.W. 507
Docket Number: No. 7453
Parties: THOMAS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 252
Pages: 507–507

Head Matter:
THOMAS v. STATE.
(No. 7453.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 16, 1923.
Rehearing Denied June 13, 1923.)
1. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;222 — Unnecessary to negative exceptions in indictment.
Under Dean Diquor Law, as amended by Acts 37th Leg. (1921) 1st Called Sess. c. 61 (Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code” Supp. 1922, art. 588% et seq.), it is unnecessary to negative the exceptions to the prohibition law in the indictment;
2. Intoxicating liquors &wkey;>2IO — Unnecessary to allege that transportation was for purpose of sale.
Under the Dean Liquor Law, as amended by Acts 37th Leg. (1921) 1st Called Sess. c. 61 (Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588% et seq.), it is unnecessary to allege that the transportation was for the purpose of sale.
Appeal from District Court, Red River County; Austin S. Dodd, Special Judge.
Clovis Thomas was indicted for unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor. Prom a refusal to suspend a sentence entered on a plea of guilty, he appealed.
Affirmed.
T. T. Thompson, of Clarksville, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Appellant was under indictment for the offense of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor. He entered a plea of guilty and applied for suspended sentence. Punishment was assessed at one year in the penitentiary, and suspended sentence denied. In view of the trial judge's qualification to the first bill of exception, no error is presented.
The court properly overruled the motion to quash the indictment. It was returned at the May term of court, 1922, and alleged the offense to have been committed in April, 1922. Since the amendment to the Dean Liquor Law, 37th Leg. 1st Called Sess. p. 233 (Vernon's Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588¼ et seq.), it has been unnecessary to negative the exceptions. Crowley v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 103, 242 S. W. 472. Neither is it necessary to allege the transportation to have been for the purpose of sale. Crowley v. State, supra; Stringer v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 46, 241 S. W. 159. These cases have been uniformly followed.
The other criticism of the indictment has been settled against appellant in Ex parte Gilmore, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 529, 228 S. W. 199; Chandler v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 308, 232 S. W. 336; Chandler v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 599, 232 S. W. 337. Writs of error to the Supreme Court of the United States weré granted in the Chandler Cases, and the holding of this court sustained.
The judgment is affirmed.
^xoFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBEB in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes