Case Name: BAILEY v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-10-03
Citations: 260 S.W. 1057
Docket Number: No. 7573
Parties: BAILEY v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 260
Pages: 1057–1059

Head Matter:
BAILEY v. STATE.
(No. 7573.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 3, 1923.
Rehearing Denied April 30, 1924.)
1. Intoxicating liquors &wkey;>202 — Indictment for transportation need not allege same was for purpose of sale.
An indictment charging transportation of “spirituous, vinous, malt and intoxicating liquors not for medicinal, mechanical, scientific or sacramental purposes” held sufficient without an averment that same was for the purpose of sale.
2. Criminal law &wkey;>730( 12) — Argument of counsel in prosecution for transportation held not obviously harmful.
In a prosecution for transporting liquor, where the state proved a conversation wherein defendant had promised that after delivering a particular two quarts he would stop such practice, held, that argument of the county attorney that defendant “was a bootlegger and was peddling whisky over the country” was not obviously harmful or prejudicial where immediately disapproved by the court.
3. Criminal law &wkey;>H66!/2(6) — Lack of qualification of veniremen as freeholder or householder held not reversible error.
Failure of the court to qualify a particular venireman as a householder or freeholder held not reversible error where the facts showing his status were developed, and where no contention was made that he was not fair and impartial.
On Motion for Rehearing.
4. Criminal law <&wkey;784(3) — Confession to obviate necessity for charge on circumstantial evidence must be as to main fact charged and unequivocal.
A confession by defendant to relieve the court of the necessity of charging on circumstantial evidence must unequivocally admit the act charged.
5. Criminal law <&wkey;784(3)— Confession held to obviate necessity for charge on circumstantial evidence.
In prosecution for transporting intoxicating liquor, where witness had testified that he saw something thrown from defendant’s buggy just after he had passed sheriff, and that on going to the place he found a bottle of whisky, and that • defendant subsequently admitted that if the sheriff had stopped he would have been caught, and that he had gone back to get the whisky, held 'a sufficient confession to obviate necessity of charging on circumstantial evidence.
6. Criminal law <&wkey;>784(l) — If facts proved are equivalent to direct testimony a charge on circumstantial evidence unnecessary.
If facts proven are in such juxtaposition to the main fact to be proved as to be equivalent to direct testimony, a charge on circumstantial evidence is not required.
®=>B'or other cases see same topic and KEY -NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
Appeal from District Court, Franklin County; R. T. Wilkinson, Judge.
Leslie Bailey was convicted of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
F. B. Caudle, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.
R. C. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
Conviction is for the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years.
The indictment charged that appellant did "unlawfully transport spirituoufe, vinous, malt, and intoxicating liquors, not for medicinal, mechanical, scientific or sacramental purposes." This sufficiently charged the offense. The law did not require an averment that it was transported for the purpose of sale. Crowley v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 103, 242 S. W. 472.
According to the state's evidence, at the time of the occurrence appellant was seen by the witness Autry; also by Moore, the sheriff. Later Autry and appellant met in the town of Winnsboro, and a conversation took place in which Autry admonished the appellant that he would have trouble unless he amended his ways in the respect in question. Appellant said that at the time he met the sheriff he was scared, and that if the sheriff had. stopped him at once he would have caught him. Autry told appellant that if he would quit like he had promised he (Autry) was glad that the sheriff did not catch him, hut that unless he did quit he was bound for the penitentiary, To this appellant assented, and that there was an old boy in. Winnsboro who wanted appellant to bring him a couple of quarts, and that he had told the party that after doing so he was through. There was no objection to the introduction of this'testimony, but there is a complaint of the argument of the county attorney in which he said that the "appellant was a bootlegger and was peddling whisky over the country." Upon objection to the argument thé court told the jury that there was no evidence that appellant was selling liquor, and that the argument was improper. In qualifying the bill, it is shown that the county attorney had told the jury that there could be no conviction for selling whisky, as appellant was charged with transporting it. We 'think the inference that appellant was peddling whisky was not an improper one from the conversation mentioned. The argument of the county attorney, based upon the conversation to which Autry testified, had 'sufficient warrant in the evidence to exclude it from the rule which renders an argument obviously harmful.
In testing the qualifications of the veniremen the court inquired whether they were each householders in the county or freeholders in the state. It is claimed that it was ascertained after the verdict that one of the jurors was not qualified in the respect mentioned. Facts showing his status were developed, A recital of them is deemed unnecessary, but it may be said that it is doubtful whether this objection would have been tenable if made at the time. There was no contention that the juror was not fair and impartial, and his service on the jury did not vitiate the verdict. See Squyres v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 160, 242 S. W. 1029, and cases therein cited.
The record presenting no error, the- judgment is affirmed.