Court Opinion

ID: 9829477
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:20:47.605254+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:01.502870
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The following is an excerpt from appellee’s motion for a rehearing:
“This court erred in holding that appellee violated article 611 of the Penal Code, because in so doing it overruled the decisions of the Court of Criminal' Appeals of this state in the following cases, to wit: Koenig v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 357, 26 S. W. 835, 47 Am. St. Rep. 35; Cassidy v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. 454, 126 S. W. 600; Adams v. State, 145 S. W. 940.”
Not for the purpose of arguing the case with learned counsel, but to make our view of the cases referred to clear, we call attention to the fact that in the Koenig Case no one was charged with selling liquor, either legally or illegally, but Koenig was charged with illegally playing cards. His guilt did not depend on the fact that he had played cards, but upon the place where the same was played, which Judge Hurt said must be a public place. Whether the sale of liquors by the club made such place public, within the meaning of the statute, depended upon whether it was engaged in such sale by way of trade; that is, in selling to the public. The Cassidy Case was decided on the proposition that making one sale only did not violate article 611. In the instant case many sales were made. In the Adams Case but a single sale was charged in the information, though it was alleged that such sale was “then and there” made to two persons.
It is also insisted that we have overruled the decision of the Supreme Court in the Austin Club Case in that it was held in that case that the club “was not engaged in the business of selling intoxicating liquors, within the meaning of said statute.” What statute? The statute granting a license to retail liquor dealers, and not a statute punishing illegal sales of intoxicating liquors. The court held that retail liquor license could not be issued to the club because, among other reasons, it was not engaged in the sale of liquors by way of trade; that is to say, to the public, in an “open house.” The decision of the court was that the .state could not collect a license fee from the Austin Club. Suppose there had been a statute specifically making it an offense for a social club to sell intoxicating liquor, would the decision in the Austin Club Case have been different? Certainly not. The state having excluded social clubs from the list of those who could obtain a retail liquor dealer’s license, it could not collect such license fee from a club that sold intoxicating liquors, whether such sales were legal or illegal. This was all that was or could have been decided in the Austin Club Case. The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Motion overruled.