Court Opinion

ID: 9667056
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:34:08.58072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:34.529700
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DAVIDSON, Judge.
Appellant insists that the proof was insufficient to show the dry status of Cottle County and that she did not collaterally attack the proceedings relied upon to establish such status.
To show that Cottle County was a dry area within the meaning of the Liquor Control Act, the state introduced in evidence the order of the commissioners’ court of that county canvassing the returns and declaring the result of the election and the certificate of the county judge showing publication of the order putting local option into effect. The state did not introduce in evidence the order of the commissioners’ court calling the election.
If we understand appellant’s position, it is that the order calling the election is a necessary element to establish a dry area.
With this contention we do not agree. The order canvassing the returns and declaring the result shows that an election had been theretofore held. In the absence of evidence that an election was not in fact called, we are constrained to agree that the order canvassing returns and declaring the result, together with the certificate putting local option into effect, constitute prima facie evidence of the dry status of the area involved.
We remain convinced that a proper conclusion was reached originally, and the motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.