Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

ELIAS WILLIAMS v. THE STATE.

Intoxicating Liquors — Possession — Repeal of Law.

By amendment of the prohibition law, Second Called Session of the Thirty-seventh Legislature, it is not now an offense to possess intoxicating liquor unless the same is had for the purpose of sale, and it is necessary to allege and to prove that it was so possessed for the purpose of sale before an offense is charged or a conviction can be had. Following Cox v. State, 90 Tex. Crim. 256, recently decided.

HAWKINS, JUDGE.

Conviction was for possession of intoxicating liquor. Penalty assessed at one and one-half years in the penitentiary.

By amendment of the prohibition law passed by the Second Called Session of the Thirty-seventh Legislature, it is not now an offense to possess intoxicating liquor, unless the same is had for the purpose of sale, and it is necessary to allege and to prove that it was so possessed for the purpose of sale before an offense is charged, or a conviction can be had. No. 6423, Frank Cox v. State, 90 Tex.Crim. Rep.; No. 6510, Petit v. State, 90 Tex.Crim. Rep.; No. 6493, Francis v. State, 90 Tex.Crim. Rep., all decided at the present term of court and not yet reported.

Under the foregoing authorities it is necessary to reverse the judgment of the trial court and order the prosecution dismissed.

Reversed and dismissed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

WILLIAMS v. THE STATE
(Dec 21, 1921)