Case Name: COURSEY v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-03-05
Citations: 260 S.W. 851
Docket Number: No. 8081
Parties: COURSEY v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 260
Pages: 851–852

Head Matter:
COURSEY v. STATE.
(No. 8081.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 5, 1924.
Rehearing Denied April 16, 1924.)
1. Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;236(l I) — Evidence held to sustain conviction for selling.
Testimony of a witness that he bought a bottle of whisky from defendant and paid for it, coupled with court’s judicial knowledge that whisky is intoxicating, held to sustain conviction for selling intoxicating liquor.
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Criminal law <g=»878(2) — Sentence applying ■to one of two counts, general verdict of guilty, not assessing lowest punishment, sustained.
Where the indictment charged sale and delivery of intoxicating liquor in separate counts, and the evidence showed a single transaction, held, that the court properly applied a general verdict of guilty, assessing punishment at more than the minimum, to the count charging a sale, as against the objection that the minimum penalty was not given.
other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
Appeal from District Court, Mitchell County; W. P. Leslie, Judge.
F. C. Coursey was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
L. W. Sandusky, of Colorado, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district -court of Mitchell .county of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.
There were two counts in the indictment, one charging the selling of intoxicating liquor, and the other the delivering of such liquor. Both were submitted to the jury, which returned a general verdict. This was applied by the court in his judgment to the count charging the selling of liquor, and the sentence followed the judgment. This was permissible. Rambo v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 258 S. W. 827, No. 7431, opinion delivered October 24, 1923.
No bills of exception were reserved, and the statement of facts seems ample to support the conclusion of guilt. The witness Who purchased from appellant testified that he bought and paid for a bottle of whisky. This court has stated in many opinions its judicial knowledge of the fact that whisky was intoxicating.
There being no error in the record, an af-firmance will be ordered.