Case Name: ALLEN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-02-08
Citations: 237 S.W. 938
Docket Number: No. 6641
Parties: ALLEN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 237
Pages: 938–938

Head Matter:
ALLEN v. STATE.
(No. 6641.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 8, 1922.)
1. Intoxicating liquors <©=>139 — Possession no offense unless for purpose of sale.
Under Acts 37th Eeg. (1921) 1st Called Sess. e. 61, it is not a crime to have possession of intoxicating liquor except for the purpose of sale.
2. Intoxicating liquors ©=7211 — Indictment charging possession held defective for failure to allege that possession was for the purpose of sale.
Indictment charging defendant with having possession of intoxicating liquor held defective for failure to allege that the possession was for the purpose of sale, under Acts 37th Eeg. (1921) 1st Called Sess. c. 61.
Appeal from District Court, Titus County; R. T. Wilkinson, Judge.
Tom Allen, Sr., was convicted of having the possession of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Judgment reversed, and prosecution ordered dismissed.
Wilkinson & Cook, of Mt. Pleasant, for appellant.
, R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Conviction is for the possession of intoxicating liquor. Punishment assessed at two years' confinement in the penitentiary.
By the Acts of the Thirty-Sixth Legislature the possession of intoxicating liquor was made an offense unless it was possessed for medicinal, mechanical, scientific, or sacramental purposes. The Thirty-Seventh Legislature (Acts First and Second Called Sessions, p. 233) in effect repealed that provision of the law making the possession of intoxicating liquor an offense, except where the possession was for the purpose of sale. The. indictment in this case, failing to allege that the possession was for the purpose of sale, charges no offense against the law as it now stands. Petit v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 235 S. W. 579; Francis v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 235 S. W. 580; Ex parte Doc Mitchum (Tex. Cr. App., No. 6772) 237 S. W. 936, opinion delivered February 1, 1922. In the latter case will be found a discussion to some extent explaining more in' detail our views with reference to the effect of the amendment by the Thirty-Seventh Legislature.
Because of the defect pointed out in the'indictment, resulting from the amendment referred to, the judgment of the trial court will be reversed, and the presecution ordered dismissed under the indictment in its present form.