Case Name: MONROE v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-03-26
Citations: 157 S.W. 154
Docket Number: 
Parties: MONROE v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 157
Pages: 154–157

Head Matter:
MONROE v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 26, 1913.
On Motion for Rehearing, May 28, 1913.)
1. INTOXICATING LlQUOES (§ 205*) — OFFENSES —Indictment—Sufficiency.
In view of Acts 30th Leg. 1st Called Sess. c. 8, providing that if no contest is filed it shall be conclusively presumed that a local option election is a valid one, an indictment charging the offense of pursuing the business of selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory, which averred that an election was held, and it was determined that the sale of liquor should •be prohibited, is sufficient, although not averring that the election held was a legal and valid one.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. § 225; Dec. Dig. § 205.*]
On -Motion for Rehearing.
2. Criminal Law (§ 1206*) — Punishment-Suspended Sentence.
Where, after accused was convicted of following the business of selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory, the Legislature, during- the pendency of his appeal, passed the suspended sentence law (Acts 32d Leg; c. 44), which provided that if, a person on trial requests in writing that his general reputation be inquired into, and the proof shall show and the jury shall find that he has never before been convicted of a felony, and the jury shall recommend that the sentence be suspended, the court shall suspend the sentence, the accused is not entitled to any benefit from such act; it appearing that it did not expressly apply to of fenders whose appeals were pending', and the act expressly insisted upon, a demand in writing prior to trial in order to give an" accused the benefit of its provisions, and did not give the trial judge any authority to suspend sentence upon his own motion.
[Ed. Note, — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3271-3277, 3279, 3280; Dec. Dig. § 1206.*]
3. Ceiminai, Law (§ 881 ) — Judgment— Sufficiency.
In a prosecution for following the business of selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory, where the indictment charged the offense with particularity, a verdict of guilty as charged in the indictment, signed by the fore'man, together with the judgment and sentence thereon, are sufficient.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2089, 2093; Dec. Dig. § 881.*]
4. Criminal Law (§ 1184*) — Appeal—Disposition.
Under Code Cr. Proc. 3911, art. 938, providing that the Court of Criminal Appeals may reform and correct a judgment as the law and nature of the case require, a judgment which is too vague and indefinite may be reformed on appeal, where the indictment, charge of the court, and verdict are all a part of the record.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3199, 3200; Dec. Dig. § 1184.*]
Appeal from District Court, Williamson County; Charles A. Wilcox, Judge.
Arthur Monroe was convicted of the offense of pursuing the business and occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Nunn & Love, of Georgetown, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in-Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
Appellant was prosecuted and convicted of the offense of pursuing the business and occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory. There is no statement of facts nor bills of exceptions 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 30th Leg. 1st Called Sess. c. 8, p. 447, which provides within what time said elections may be contested, and if no contest is filed it shall be conclusively presumed that said election was a valid one.
The other grounds are equally without merit; the indictment being drawn in terms frequently approved by tljis court.
The judgment is affirmed.