Opinion
No. 19432.
Delivered February 16, 1938.
1. — Intoxicating Liquor (Possessing for Sale in Dry Area) — Evidence of Dry Status.
In prosecution for unlawful possession of liquor for purpose of sale in a dry area, proof of dry status of area must not only be pleaded but proof must show that local option was in force in dry area mentioned in indictment or information.
2. — Intoxicating Liquor (Possessing for Sale in Dry Area) — Evidence.
Evidence which failed to show the dry status of area named was insufficient to support conviction for unlawful possession of beer for purpose of sale in dry area.
Appeal from County Court of Delta County. Hon. J. T. Taylor, Judge.
Appeal from conviction for the unlawful possession of beer for the purpose of sale in a dry area; penalty, confinement in county jail for thirty days.
Reversed and remanded.
The opinion states the case.
R. H. Good, of Cooper, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Attorney, of Austin, for the State.
The charge is the unlawful possession of beer for the purpose of sale in a dry area, to-wit: Delta County, and the punishment assessed being thirty days in the county jail.
The appellant complains of the fact that there was no testimony introduced showing the dry status of Delta County, and a perusal of the statement of facts bears out the correctness of such statement.
We have heretofore held, in a long line of cases, that the procedure relative to the adoption of such law should not only be pleaded but proven. See the late case of Baldridge v. State, 106 S.W.2d 700, and cases there cited. Such proof is absent in this case, and we have no alternative than to reverse and remand this case.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.