Case Name: Arthur Monroe v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-03-26
Citations: 70 Tex. Crim. 245
Docket Number: No. 2359
Parties: Arthur Monroe v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 70
Pages: 245–250

Head Matter:
Arthur Monroe v. The State.
No. 2359.
Decided March 26, 1913.
Eehearing denied April 25, 1913.
1.—Occupation—Selling Intoxicating Liquors—Local Option—Indictment —Election.
Where, upon trial of pursuing the occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in local option territory, the indictment followed approved precedent, the same was sufficient and it was not necessary to allege that the election was valid and legal.
2,.—Same—Election—Contest—Presumption.
'Where no contest of election is filed under Act of Thirtieth Legislature, Chapter 8, p. 447, the presumption is that said local option election was a valid one.
3. —Same—Suspended Sentence—Bepeal—Amelioration.
The suspended sentence law, passed by the Thirty-third Legislature, repeals no law of this State declaring what are penal offenses, and had no application to a prosecution then pending for pursuing the occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in local option territory, nor did it ameliorate the penalty in such prosecutions.
4. —Same—Suspended Sentence Act—Prerequisites Necessary.
The suspended sentence Act can only be invoked on condition that the person on trial, before the trial begins and the verdict of the jury is rendered, shall request in writing that his reputation be made an issue in the trial, before he may receive any benefits from the ameliorating statutes, and was not intended to apply to trials had or pending before the passage of the law. Following Walker v. State, 7 Texas Crim. App., 245.
5. —Same—Judgment and Sentence—Definition of Offense.
Upon conviction for pursuing the occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in local option territory, the judgment and sentence of the court need not define the offense as specifically and definitely as the indictment or bail bond, and need only refer in general terms to the offense charged in the indictment, as all of the pleadings, charge of court, the verdict, etc., are a part of the record in the case.
Appeal from the District Court of Williamson. Tried below before the'Hon. Charles A. Wilcox.
Appeal from a conviction of pursuing the occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in local option territory; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
A. S. Fisher and Nunn & Love, for appellant.
On question of insufficiency of the indictment, and failure to allege date of sales, etc.; Fitch v. State, 58 Texas Crim. Rep., 366, 127 S. W. Rep., 1040; Mizell v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Rep., 226, 128 S. W. Rep., 125; Coleman v. State, 62 S. W. Rep., 753; Barnes v. State, 59 S. W. Rep., 882; Slack v. State, 61 Texas Crim. Rep., 372, 136 S. W. Rep., 1073.
On question of Act suspending sentence ameliorating penalty: McInturf v. State, 20 Texas Crim. App., 335; Murray v. State, 1 id., 417; Hall v. State, 52 Texas Crim. Rep., 195; U. S. v. Tynen, 11 Wallace, 88; Com. v. Kimball, 21 Pick. (Mass.), 373; Keller v. State, 12 Md., 322.
On question of description of offense in sentence: Stephens v. State, 50 Texas Crim. Rep., 531, 98 S. W. Rep., 859; Parish v. State, 47 Texas Crim. Rep., 148, 82 S. W. Rep., 517; Lindsey v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Rep., 273, 128 S. W. Rep., 386; Duffer v. State, 38 S. W. Rep., 997; Woods v. State, 51 Texas Crim. Rep., 595, 103 S. W. Rep., 895.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
The indictment alleges that appellant did unlawfully make certain sales to Son Allen, Bud Bailey, Will Bailey, and Arthur Stevenson, etc., prior to September 12, -1909, and subsequent to the filing of the indictment, September 12, 1912, and in pursuance of said business and occupation (of selling intoxicating liquors) (and the indictment alleges that appellant pursued said occupation and business on or about February 1, 1912). Hence, this indictment in substance alleged that appellant made the sales to Son Allen, Bud Bailey, Will Bailey and Arthur Stevenson on or about February 1, 1912, and the indictment in this case went further than the law requires and alleged four separate sales. Cases cited.

Opinion:
HARPER, Judge.
Appellant was prosecuted and convicted of the offense of pursuing the business and occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory. There are no statements of facts nor bills of exception accompanying the record; so the only question presented that we can review is the motion to quash the indictment.
The first ground in the motion is that the indictment fails to allege that "a valid and legal election" was held. The indictment follows the usual and customary form approved by this court in this respect, that an election was held to determine whether or not the sale of intoxicating liquors should be prohibited and at said election it was determined the sale should be prohibited, and the court declared the result of said election, entered an order to that effect, which order was duly published, and it was not necessary to state that the election so held was "a valid and legal one." Acts of Thirtieth Legislature, chapter 8, page 447, which provides within what time said election may be contested, and if no contest is filed it shall be conclusively presumed that said election was a valid one.
[Rehearing denied April 35, 1913.—Reporter.]
The other grounds are equally without merit, the indictment being drawn in terms frequently approved by this court.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.