Case Name: L. Ledford v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1894-02-07
Citations: 32 Tex. Crim. 567
Docket Number: No. 206
Parties: L. Ledford v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 567–568

Head Matter:
L. Ledford v. The State.
No. 206.
Decided February 7.
Intoxicating Liquors—Allegation and Proof.—Where an indictment charged that defendant, who both as a principal and as an agent was interested in the sale of intoxicating liquors, did in his capacity as a physician unlawfully give a prescription for liquor in a local option precinct, and the evidence wholly failed to show that defendant was interested in the business, held, the conviction was unsupported by the evidence.
Appeal from the County Court of Palo Pinto. Tried below before Hon. W. E. McConnell, County Judge.
Appellant was indicted as a practicing physician for unlawfully giving a prescription for liquor in a local option precinct, he being at the time, both as a principal and agent, interested in the sale of intoxicating liquors in the drug business. His trial resulted in a conviction, the punishment assessed being a pecuniary fine of $50 and imprisonment in the county jail for twenty days.
No statement necessary.
No briefs on file in the case.
JR. L. Henry, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Judge.
The charge in the indictment is, that defendant, being ' interested for himself, and as agent and employe of W. H. Pitts and for the Strawn Drug Company, each of whom are interested in the sale of intoxicating liquor, did then and there give a prescription to John Grant to be used in obtaining intoxicating liquors, then and thereby acting in the capacity of a practicing physician." The prescription was given in a local option precinct.
Grant testified to getting the prescription and liquor from defendant at the store of the Strawn Drug Company, but knew nothing in regard to the fact of defendant's being interested in the business. The remaining testimony is direct and positive that he was not interested in the said business.
As presented in the record, the conviction is unsupported by the evidence. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Judges all present and concurring.