Case Name: McCARVER v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1943-05-12
Citations: 171 S.W.2d 492
Docket Number: No. 22510
Parties: McCARVER v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 171
Pages: 492–494

Head Matter:
McCARVER v. STATE.
No. 22510.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 12, 1943.
Rehearing Denied June 2, 1943.
Alex P. Pope, of Tyler, for appellant.
Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
GRAVES, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of a violation of the liquor laws of Smith County, and awarded a punishment of one year in the county jail.
It is alleged in the complaint and information that Smith County is a dry area. We find no testimony in the record to show such a status for Smith County. It is necessary that such should have been proven, and be found in the statement of facts, unless such dry status be agreed to-therein. We find no such agreement in the record. Such a failure is fatal to the judgment. See Duran v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 158 S.W.2d 316, and cases there cited.
We think that bill of exceptions No. 1 evidences no error in that the court certified in his qualification, and it is shown by the evidence that appellant was known by either name, McColvin or McCarver.
Bill of exceptions No. 2 complains because the witness Carter was allowed to testify that inside appellant's house there was found a ladder, and at the top of where such ladder was resting "it looked like some one had been reaching into an opening." This seemed to have been a conclusion of the witness and it would have been better had the witness been allowed to describe the condition found there and let the jury decide what had probably been done at such opening.
Bill of exceptions No. 3 relates to the finding of some empty whisky bottles on appellant's premises. Taken in connection with the finding of some full whisky bottles on such premises, some hidden away in cunningly devised places, we think such was admissible.
Bill of exceptions No. 4 does not present any error, so we think.
For a failure to prove the dry status of Smith County, this judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.