Case Name: John Byrd v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1907-06-05
Citations: 51 Tex. Crim. 539
Docket Number: No. 3568
Parties: John Byrd v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 51
Pages: 539–542

Head Matter:
John Byrd v. The State.
No. 3568.
Decided June 5, 1907.
1. —Local Option—Verdict—Reforming Judgment.
Where the judgment in a trial for a violation of the local option law was not responsive to the verdict, it was reformed in the appellate court so as to correspond with the verdict.
2. —Same—Allusion to Other Case—Practice on Appeal.
Upon an appeal from a conviction of a violation of the local option law, the appellate court could not take cognizance of another case which constituted no part of the record in the case on appeal.
3. —Same—Theory of Defense—Charge Refused—Good Faith—Mistake of Fact.
Where upon trial for a violation of the local option law, the evidence showed that the prosecuting witness ordered a quart of whisky through the defendant on the date charged, and that defendant received such order to forward same to be filled by a certain party outside of local option territory, which the latter agreed to fill; and thereafter in due time the defendant was informed that said whisky had arrived, and defendant relying on said information delivered a quart of whisky to said prosecuting witness in good faith, believing it to be the whisky ordered, the court should have submitted a requested charge on this phase of the case.
4. —Same—Pleading—Proof—Different Elections.
Where the information charged a violation of the local option law in a certain territory voted on and passed in 1903, the State was required to prove the same as alleged, and when the defendant showed that said law was abrogated by an election on local option in the same territory in 1906, a prosecution under the law of 1903 could not be maintained.
Appeal from the County Court of Brown. Tried below before the Hon. A. M. Brunfield.
Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the local option law; penalty, a fine oí $25 and twenty days confinement in the county jail.
The opinion states the case.
Coffee & Baker, for appellant.
Where one laboring under a mistake as to a particular fact does an act that would not be criminal were he correct in his belief as to the fact about which he is mistaken, he is guilty of no offense unless the mistake of fact arises from a want of proper care on his part. Patrick v. State, 45 Texas Crim. Rep., 587; Mayne v. State, 86 S. W. Rep., 329; Uloth v. State, 87 S. W. Rep., 822. On question of two different elections: Raby v. State, 42 Texas Crim. Rep., 56.
F. J. McCord, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
BROOKS, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law. The facts in this case show that appellant was working for Bart Carnes, whose case was affirmed during the present term of this court for selling intoxicating liquors. The evidence in this case makes out a clear case of a sale. Appellant raises divers and sundry questions, but after a most careful perusal of all of them, we find there is no merit in any of appellant's insistences. The law is regular, the indictment is in proper form, and the evidence shows a clear violation of the law from the State's standpoint; the charge of the court is correct.
An examination of the judgment in this case shows that the jury's verdict found appellant guilty and assessed his punishment at a fine of $25 and twenty days imprisonment in the county jail, but through inadvertence the clerk in writing up the judgment assessed the fine of $100, and all costs of this prosecution. The judgment should have been responsive to the verdict, and under the authorities of this court we hereby reform same in accordance with said verdict. It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the State of Texas do have and recover of the defendant John Byrd the said fine of $25 and twenty days imprisonment in the county jail, and that execution may issue against appellant for the amount of such fine and costs, and that defendant shall be imprisoned in the county jail for a term of twenty days, as provided by law, and the clerk of this court is hereby required to enter up a judgment according to this oipnion.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.