Case Name: ALEXANDER v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-04-05
Citations: 239 S.W. 950
Docket Number: No. 6857
Parties: ALEXANDER v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 239
Pages: 950–951

Head Matter:
ALEXANDER v. STATE.
(No. 6857.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 5, 1922.)
Intoxicating liquors ⅞=>137— Possession of equipment .for manufacture of intoxicating liquor not ¡ilegal.
Under Acts 37th Leg. (1921) First Called Sess. c. 61 (Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588¼ et seq.), amending Acts 36th Leg. (1919) Second Called Sess. c. 78, and omitting the offense of possessing equipment for manufacture of intoxicating liquor,- the possession of such equipment is not illegal.
Appeal from District Court, Morris County ; R. T. Wilkinson, Judge.
Walter Alexander was convicted of the possession of intoxicating liquor, and of possession of equipment for manufacturing of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Reversed, and prosecution ordered dismissed.
Henderson & Bolin, of Daingerfield, for appellant.
E. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, J.
The conviction is for the possession of intoxicating liquor and for the possession of equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor.
The date of the offense was in November, 1919, subsequent to the date upon which chapter 78 of the Acts of the 36th Leg., Second Called Session (Vernon's Ann. Pén. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588¼ et seq.), became effec- ti ve. That act of the-Legislature was amended by chapter 61 of the Acts of the 37th Leg., First Called Session, and as amended the -specific offense of possessing equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor was omitted, and the definition of the offense of possessing intoxicating liquor was changed. We have heretofore, in numerous cases, expressed our views with reference to the effect of this amendment on both of these offenses and because of it have found it necessary to reverse judgments of conviction. The leading case touching equipment is Cox v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 234 S. W. 531; and among the leading cases touching the possession of liquor is Francis v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 235 S. W. 580. In Ex parte Mitchum (No. 6772, Tex. Cr. App.) 237 S.W. 936, recently decided, will be found a discussion of the necessity that in an indictment charging the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor there be an averment that the possession was for the purpose of sale. A further discussion of the matter is deemed unnecessary.
The judgment of conviction is reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
@=oFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes