
    POUDRILL v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 1, 1911.)
    Intoxicating Liquobs (§ 236*) — -Violation of Local Option Law — Evidence.
    To support a conviction of violating the local option law, the evidence must show the adoption of the law in the county, or town, or precinct in which the sale occurred.
    [Ed. Note. — For other, cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Dec. Dig. § 236.*]
    Appeal from Shelby County Court; W. D. White, Judge.
    R. H. Poudrill was convicted of violating the local option law, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    H. E. Stephenson, City Atty., and John A. Mobley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PRENDERGAST, J.

This is an appeal-from a conviction in the county court of Shelby county for an illegal sale of intoxicating liquors.

An examination of the statement of facts shows that there was no evidence offered showing that local option had been adopted at any time in Shelby county, or the town or precinct in which the offense is charged to have occurred. It has been the uniform holding of this court, where this occurs, to reverse the case. There are many opinions to this effect. Tyrell v. State, 44 S. W. 159; Scott v. State, 44 S. W. 495; Lively v. State, 72 S. W. 393; Allen v. State, 98 S. W. 870; Bills v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 544, 117 S. W. 835. On this account, the judgment of the lower court will be reversed, and the cause remanded.

The other questions raised in the case will probably not occur upon another trial, and it is unnecessary to decide any of the questions raised.

Reversed and remanded.  