Case Name: JARROTT v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-02-05
Citations: 209 S.W. 663
Docket Number: No. 5269
Parties: JARROTT v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 209
Pages: 663–664

Head Matter:
JARROTT v. STATE.
(No. 5269.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 5, 1919.
Rehearing Denied March 12, 1919.)
1. Criminal Law <§=>1092(8) — Bills or Exception.
‘ Where there was a 60-day order entered allowing filing of bills of exception, and an additional order of 30 days was entered by court, bills filed on ninety-first day were too late for consideration on appeal.
2. Intoxicating Liqtjoes <§=>37 — Elections —Local Option — Validity.
A local option election will be held valid in absence of a contest within the time prescribed by statute and a finding of court upon -that contest that election was illegal.
3. Intoxicating Liquors <§=>25 — Local Option — Zone Law.
Assuming that the zone law was a prohibition, and not a regulation, measure, it could not substitute or repeal a local option law voted in by the people.
4. Intoxicating Liquors <§=>25 — Prohibition-Local Option.
The state-wide statutory prohibition did not repeal the local option law.
Appeal from District. Court, Montague County; John Speer, Judge.' .
Hugh Jarrott was convicted of violating the local option law, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Hugh Jarrott, pro se.
E. A. Berry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
Appellant was convicted for violating the local option law; his punishment being assessed at two years' con-. finement in the penitentiary.
The statement of facts is not approved by the trial judge, and the bills of exception •seem to have been filed one day too late. There was a 60-day order entered allowing the filing of bills of exception and statement of facts, and an additional order of 30 days was entered by the court, making 90 days allowed in which to file bills of exception. The bills were filed on the ninety-first day, which is one day too late for their considerf-ation.
Appellant presents in his motion to quash and in his motion for new trial a question that ought to require notice. His contention is that the local option law was not put into effect legally. This cannot be considered as presented. The election was held in 1912. This election would be held valid in the absence of a' contest within the time prescribed by .the statute and a finding of the court upon that contest that the election was illegal. In any event, it could not be made the subject of a motion to quash without the facts supporting it.
It is contended also that the local option law, if valid, was repealed and the statute set aside by what is popularly known as the zone law. We cannot agree with this contention. The zone law, in Ex parte Hollings- • worth, 203 S. W. 1102, was held to be a regulatory measure, and did not apply to local option territory. The regulation of the sale of whisky does not apply in local option territory. It is unnecessary to review or discuss the question involved in the Hollings-worth Case. It being a regulation as announced in that case, it could not interfere with a local option election held by the people and put into operation in the same territory. Appellant perhaps would be in no better condition if the zone law was a prohibition, and not a regulation, measure, for the reason that, if it was a prohibition law, then it could not substitute or repeal the local option law voted into existence by the people. The decisions are unanimous in regard to this question in the history of this court.
Nor is there any force in the further ground that what is known as state-wide statutory prohibition repeals the local option law. This question underwent very thorough consideration both on the original submission and on rehearing in the case of Ex parte Myer, 207 S, W. 100. It is not the purpose of the writer to review those questions again. The substance of the holding was that, in view of the constitutional provision in reference to local option, the Legislature was without authority to pass a prohibition law that was in violation of said section of the Constitution.
As the record presents the case, the judgment will be affirmed.
<£=>For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes