Case Name: Burl Loftin v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-05-07
Citations: 97 Tex. Crim. 401
Docket Number: No. 8224
Parties: Burl Loftin v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 97
Pages: 401–401

Head Matter:
Burl Loftin v. The State.
No. 8224.
Decided May 7, 1924.
Selling Intoxicating Liquor — Name of Purchaser.
It is absolutely essential to name the alleged purchaser in the indictment, or if the purchaser is unknown, to so allege with the other necessary averments under such circumstances, and where the indictment in the instant case, for selling intoxicating liquor, omitted the name of the alleged purchaser, the judgment must be reversed and the prosecution dismissed.
Appeal from the District Court of Jasper. Tried below before the Honorable V. H. Stark.
Appeal from a conviction of selling intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the ease.
J. B. Forse and G. E. Richardson, for appellant.
Cited cases in opinion.
Tom, Garrard, Attorney for the State and Grover C. Morris, Assistant Attorney for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
Conviction is for the sale of intoxicating liquor with a punishment of one year in the penitentiary.
The indictment alleged the sale of intoxicating liquor but omitted the name of the alleged purchaser. A motion to quash the indictment because of this omission was presented and overruled.
Article 464, C. C. P., reads as follows:
"In an indictment for selling intoxicating liquors in violation of any law of this state, it shall be sufficient to charge that the defendant sold intoxicating liquors contrary to law, naming the person to whom sold, without stating the quantity sold; and, under such indictment, any act of selling in violation of- the law may be proved."
In addition to the foregoing statute, we cite Dixon v. State, 21. Texas Crim. App., 517, 1 S. W. Rep., 448; Drechsel v. State, 35 Texas Crim. Rep., 580, 34 S. W. Rep., 934; Ex parte Campbell, 67 Texas Crim Rep., 171; as directly in point and holding that it is absolutely essential to name the alleged purchaser, or if the purchaser is unknown, to so allege with the other necessary averments under such circumstances. If there has ever been a variance from these holdings, we are not aware of it.
The judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
Dismissed.