Opinion
No. 19520.
Delivered March 9, 1938. State's rehearing granted April 20, 1938. Appellant's rehearing denied June 8, 1938.
1. — Intoxicating Liquor (Possessing for Sale in Dry Area) — Complaint — Jurisdiction.
The county court was without jurisdiction of prosecution for violating the local option liquor laws, where the record contained no complaint.
ON STATE'S MOTION FOR REHEARING.2. — Intoxicating Liquor (Possessing for Sale in Dry Area) — Appeal Reinstated — Complaint.
An order dismissing a prosecution for violating the local option liquor laws, because the record on appeal contained no complaint, was set aside where it was made to appear that a proper complaint was filed at the proper time and that the failure to have complaint incorporated in the transcript was an inadvertence and mistake upon the part of the county clerk, and a certified copy of such complaint was filed.
3. — Intoxicating Liquor (Possessing for Sale in Dry Area) — Affirmance.
Where there were no bills of exception in the record and the statement of facts showed that officers searched defendant's premises and found 120 twelve-ounce cans of beer, which was intoxicating, in a county which was a dry area, conviction for violating local option liquor laws was affirmed.
Appeal from the County Court of Runnels County. Hon. Paul Trimmier, Judge.
Appeal from conviction for violating the local option laws; penalty, fine of $250.
Affirmed.
The opinion states the case.
Eugene F. Mathis, of San Angelo, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Attorney, of Austin, for the State.
The offense charged is for violating the local option liquor laws, the punishment assessed being a fine of $250.00.
The record is before us without a complaint being incorporated therein. We have heretofore held that a complaint is necessary in order to confer jurisdiction upon the county court. See Article 415, C. C. P.; McQueen v. State, No. 19521, opinion this day handed down [page 74 of this volume]; and Olivares v. State, 76 S.W.2d 140.
The judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
ON STATE'S MOTION FOR REHEARING.
This cause has been heretofore reversed and ordered dismissed on account of a failure to find embodied in the record the complaint upon which such prosecution should have been predicated.
It is now made to appear that a proper complaint was filed in said cause at the proper time, and the failure to have same present here in the transcript was an inadvertence and mistake upon the part of the county clerk, and a certified copy thereof being now filed herein, the order dismissing this cause is set aside, and we proceed to consider the same upon its merits.
It seems from the statement of facts that the officers searched appellant's premises on July 10, 1937, and found thereon 120 twelve ounce cans of beer, which beer was intoxicating, in Runnels County, Texas, which county was a "dry area."
The complaint and information seem to charge a violation of the law. There are no bills of exception in the record. The facts seem to be sufficient, and this judgment is affirmed.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
Appellant insists that the Court erred in holding the complaint and information sufficient to charge the offense. An examination thereof convinces us that the cause was properly disposed of in our original opinion. The statement of facts is adequate to support the conviction.
The motion for rehearing will be overruled.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.