
    HUGHES v. STATE.
    No. 19335.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 16, 1938.
    Rehearing Denied March 23, 1938.
    H. J. Bernard and B. L. Palmer, both-of Houston (King C. Haynie, of Plouston, on rehearing only), for appellant.
    Kahn & Branch, of Houston, and Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, Judge.

The complaint and information charged: in substance that appellant was the agent of one Anderson, who was the holder of a package store permit issued by the-Texas Liquor Control Board, and that appellant on a Sunday sold whisky containing more than 14 per cent, of alcohol: to a named party; said sale not being-made upon the prescription of a duly licensed physician. The state’s pleading-contained other averments not necessary here to mention.

Upon conviction appellant was fined $100.

The prosecution was under Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 666 — 25 of the law designated as the Texas Liquor Control Act, § .25, as it was prior to amendment by Acts 1937, H.B. No. 5, § 32.

Appellant contends that the complaint and information charge no offense. The same point was urged in Tex.Cr.App., 114 S.W.2d 566, same appellant, opinion February 9, 1938, and was decided against him. There is no occasion to discuss the matter further.

It is urged that the purchaser was an accomplice witness and that no corroboration of his evidence appears. The purchaser of the liquor was an inspector of the Liquor Control Board. All he did was to ask for a designated brand of whisky kept for sale in the open liquor store. It was delivered to him by appellant, who received the purchase price. There is no testimony of any entrapment. The inspector appeared as any other purchaser and made no false or misleading statements to induce the sale, and was guilty of no deceit. He was not an accomplice witness. Stevens v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 110 S.W.2d 906; Mason v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 110 S.W.2d 1153; Wooldridge v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 109 S.W.2d 751.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

GRAVES, Judge.

This case is similar to the case of Earl Hughes v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 114 S.W.2d 566, opinion this day delivered, and the' same points are raised in the motion for rehearing herein as were therein presented; and on that authority this motion is overruled.  