Case Name: Tom Allen v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-02-08
Citations: 91 Tex. Crim. 105
Docket Number: No. 6641
Parties: Tom Allen v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 91
Pages: 105–105

Head Matter:
Tom Allen v. The State.
No. 6641.
Decided February 8, 1922.
Intoxicating Liquors—Possession—Repeal of Statute—Sale.
By the act of the thirty-sixth Legislature, the possession of intoxicatihg liquor was made an offense unless it was possessed for certain purposes. By the Acts of the thirty-seventh Legislature, the provision of the law making the possession of intoxicating liquor an offense was repealed, except where the possession was for the purpose of sale. Following Petit v. State, 90 Texas Grim. Rep., 336, and other cases.
Appeal from the District Court of Titus. Tried below before the Honorable R. T. Wilkinson.
Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Wilkinson & Cook, for appellant.
—Cited cases in opinion.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
—Conviction is for the possession of intoxicating liquor. Punishment assessed at two years confinement in the penitentiary.
By the Acts of the Thirty-sixth Legislature the possession of intoxicating liquor was made an offense unless it was possessed for medicinal, mechanical, scientific or sacramental purposes. The Thirty-seventh Legislature (Acts First and Second Called Sessions) page 233) in effect repealed that provision of the law making the possession of intoxicating liquor an offense, except where the possession was for the purpose of sale. Indictment in this case, failing to allege that the possession was for the purpose of sale, charges no offense against the law as it now stands. Petit v. State, 90 Texas Crim. Rep., 336; 235 S. W. Rep. 579; Francis v. State, (235 S. W. Rep. 580; No. 6772, Ex parte Doc Mitchum, 237 S. W. Rep., 936 (opinion delivered February 1, 1922). In the latter case will be found a discussion to some extent explaining more in detail our views with reference to the effect of the amendment by the Thirty-seventh Legislature.
Because of the defect pointed out in the indictment, resulting from the amendment referred to, the judgment of the trial court will be reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed under the indictment in its present form. • Beversed and dismissed.