Court Opinion

ID: 9661411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:38:31.511878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:28.294932
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
BELCHER, Judge.
Appellant, in his motion for rehearing, again contends that the court erred in refusing to quash the complaint and infor*166mation because they failed to allege that an election was held under and by virtue of an order of the commissioners’ court to determine whether the sale of intoxicating liquor should be prohibited in Kaufman County.
The questioned portion of the state’s pleading is set out in our original opinion in this case.
Appellant’s contention here presented was urged as error in Carpenter v. State, 138 Texas Cr. R. 354, 135 S.W. 2d 1002, where we held the same allegation to be sufficient.
Appellant contends that the court erred in instructing the jury that Kaufman County was a dry area because the appellant pleaded not guilty, thereby placing the dry status of the county in issue which should have been submitted to the jury, and further, that the instruction as given was a comment on the evidence.
The record reveals that copies of the minutes of the commissioners’ court of Kaufman County which “are copies of the election making Kaufman County a dry county” were introduced in evidence without objection. The clerk of the county court of Kaufman County, while testifying, was asked “And according to your records, Kaufman County was a dry area on May 22, 1953?” (the date in question) and he replied “That’s right,” to which no objection was made. Whether Kaufman County was a dry area was not controverted, and in the absence of any issue as to the adoption of local option in said county, no error is reflected in instructing the jury that Kaufman County was, by law, a dry area. Garner v. State, 133 Texas Cr. R. 86, 109 S.W. 2d 182; Walker v. State, 143 Texas Cr. R. 155, 157 S.W. 2d 887.
We have examined the other contentions presented by appellant and are of the opinion that they do not show error.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.