Court Opinion

ID: 9642376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:56:14.484396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:46.632169
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
GRAVES, Presiding Judge.
Appellant complains in his motion for rehearing herein that nowhere was it shown by proof that the liquor alleged to have been sold contained more than one-half of one per cent of alcohol by volume, but that merely the word “beer” appears relative to the article that was sold.
Article 667-1 (b) Vernon’s P.C., reads as follows:
“The term ‘beer’ means a malt beverage containing one-half of 1% or more of alcohol by volume and not more than 4% of alcohol by weight, and shall not be inclusive of any beverage designated by label or otherwise by any other name than beer.”
See also Words & Phrases, Permanent Edition, Vol. 5, page 258.
Appellant also complains of the fact that a large quantity of beer was found as a result of the search of an automobile by an agent of the Texas Liquor Control Board, out of which automobile appellant had just sold two quart bottles of beer to such agent. We think that the Texas Liquor Control Board agent was within his rights, he having probable cause to search the appellant’s automobile in which it seems that he found concealed therein thirteen 32-ounce bottles of beer. If appellant’s objection was to the search of a house nearby wherein another large quantity of beer seems to have been stored, it is not shown to have been his home, but it is shown that he agreed to the *171search thereof after he had made the two sales that were utilized in the trial of this cause, as well as the beer concealed in the automobile had been found as the result of a search under probable cause.
We see no reason for writing further herein since we think our original opinion properly disposes of the questions presented.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.