Case Name: COOK v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-10-12
Citations: 236 S.W. 723
Docket Number: No. 5958
Parties: COOK v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 236
Pages: 723–724

Head Matter:
COOK v. STATE.
(No. 5958.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 12, 1921.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 25, 1922.)
1. Indictment and information <8=3 125(3)—In-dictment held duplicitous.
Indictment under Acts 36th Leg. (1919) 2d Called Sess. c. 78, charging that defendant did “receive, transport, export, and deliver, ana solicit and take orders for, and did furnish, spirituous, vinous, and , intoxicating liquors,” held duplicitous.
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Criminal law <®=>14—Conviction not sustained on count charging possession of liquor, where, after conviction, amendment of law required possession to be for. purpose of sale.
Where defendant was convicted of possessing and transporting intoxicating liquors in violation of Acts 36th Leg. (1919) 2d Called Sess. e. 78, at a time when the possession of intoxicating liquor was an offense, the conviction will not bo sustained on appeal, on count charging defendant with having had “possession” of liquor, where, after the conviction, the statute was amended by Acts 37th Leg. (1921) 1st Called Sess. c. 61, making possession an offense only where for the purpose of sale.
Appeal from District Court, McLennan County; Richard I. Munroe, Judge.
Tommie Cook was convicted of possessing and transporting intoxicating liquor, and lie appeals.
Judgment reversed, and prosecution ordered dismissed.
Herbert Scliarff, John McNamara, and Williams & Williams, all of Waco, for appellant.
R. H. Hamilton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The conviction is for possessing and transporting intoxicating liquors; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.
The count in the indictment submitted to the jury charged that appellant did "receive, transport, export, and deliver, ahd solicit and take orders for, and did furnish, spirituous, vinous, and intoxicating liquors." The motion to quash the indictment, in substance, upon the ground that it attempted to charge several distinct felonies in the same count, was overruled.
The prosecution is under chapter 78, Second Called Session, Laws of 1919. The count in the indictment is in practically the same language as that before the court in the case of Todd v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 99, 229 S. W. 615. For the reasons there stated, the indictment in the instant case was defective, and there was error in refusing to sustain the motion to quash it.
The judgment is therefore reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
tgrtoFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NU AIDER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes