Case Name: McLAIN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-11-26
Citations: 161 S.W. 117
Docket Number: 
Parties: McLAIN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 161
Pages: 117–118

Head Matter:
McLAIN v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 26, 1913.)
Intoxicating- Liquors (§ 146 ) — Criminal Offenses — Sale—Acts Constituting.
Where accused and two others contributed money to buy a bottle of whisky, and accused with the money so contributed purchased whisky, which he and the others then drank, there was no sale of whisky by accused.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 159, 160, 163; Dec. Dig. § 146. ]
Appeal from Anderson County Court; W. I. Sims, Special Judge.
Marvin McLain was convicted of violating
the local option law, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Kay & Seagler, of Palestine, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other eases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Kep’r Indexes

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, J.
Appellant prosecutes this appeal from a conviction for violating the local option law. Two grounds are presented: First, the evidence is insufficient; second, the jury discussed appellant's failure to testify while considering the case. Taylor, the alleged purchaser, testified for the state that in November, 1912, he, defendant, and McDaniel were talking together in Franks-ton, Anderson county. McDaniel remarked that he wished he had some whisky, and asked the 'defendant if he knew where he could get it. Appellant answered he thought he could find some. Witness and McDaniel gave appellant $1.25, the witness putting in 75 cents and McDaniel 50 cents, and he says: "I think the defendant gave 25 cents. I did not see him put up the money, but my .best recollection is that he said he would throw in 25 cents, and that amount was all he had." He and McDaniel gave defendant the money. He went away, and in about 20 or 30 minutes returned with a quart of whisky, which they drank. On cross-examination he was asked the direct question: "Did you ever buy any whisky from Marvin McLain? A. No; the only time I ever got any whisky from Marvin McLain was some time in November, 1912. We had been drinking whisky on that day, and we were all near Mr. McDaniel's picture gallery. Mr. McDaniel remarked that he wished he had some whisky and asked the defendant if he knew where he could get some. The defendant answered that he thought he did. Mr. McDaniel said he would go 50 cents, and I said I would go 75 cents; the defendant said he would go a quarter, and said he would try and find some. We handed him our part of the money, and he went off towards the depot and returned with a quart of whisky. Yes; I know the price of whisky in and around Erankston; it costs $1.50 a quart. There had been a lot of negroes charged with bootlegging around there. I did not know whether they pleaded guilty or not." McDaniel testified the same as did Taylor, almost literally. John Mc-Lain testified he was appellant's brother, and was in Erankston the day appellant got whis-ky for Taylor and McDaniel. His brother ca'me to him and asked him if he knew where he could get some, whisky. He informed him, and they went to the depot, where witness had seen a negro some time before that hanging around the express office; when they reached the depot the negro was leaving, going north up the railroad track with a bundle or package. They followed, overtook, and bought from him a bottle of whisky; his brother paying $1.50 for it. His brothef then went back up town, etc.
This ds the ease, and we are of opinion appellant's contention is correct — that the state is not entitled to a conviction. These facts are uncontroverted, and in fact it is all the evidence there is in the record. They do not support a conviction. No witness testified appellant sold any whisky. All the evidence shows that he, Taylor, and McDaniel put up $1.50, and appellant went and bought the whisky with it, and paid $1.50 for it, and they drank it. It is unnecessary to cite authorities.
On the second proposition, discussion of appellant's failure to testify, we believe the judgment should be reversed; but it is unnecessary to discuss it.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.