
    Alford BOLTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
    No. 27630.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 1, 1955.
    
      D. R. Taylor, Jr., Center, for appellant.
    Richard E. McDaniel, County Atty., Center, Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
   DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for the unlawful sale of wine in a dry area, with punishment assessed at a fine of $400.. , _

Art. 666-4(b), Vernon’s P.C., makes it unlawful not only to sell liquor but also to sell wine, in any dry area.

Wine is a liquor containing.alcohol in excess of four per centum by weight, and proof an alcoholic beverage is wine is prima facie evidence that it is liquor. Byars v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 515, 229 S.W.2d 169.

Under the constitutional amendment of Art. XVI, § 20, in 1935, the legislature was authorized to prohibit the sále of wine, by name, in a dry area where the sale of intoxicating liquors had been prohibited by local option elections held under the laws of this state and in force at the time of the taking effect of Section 20 of Art. XVI of the Constitution of‘this state.

The information in.this, case alleged that appellant sold wine, to Rogers William in Shelby County, a dry area.

Rogers William did not testify upon the trial of the case.'

There is no direct testimony .that appellant sold wine to William.

The state relied upon facts showing that Hughes, a deputy sheriff, gave to Williams two $1 bills, the serial numbers of which Hughes 'made a record, with instructions to buy a bottle of wine from appellant.

Subsequently thereto, the two $1 bills were found upon the person of appellant, the bills bearing the same serial numbers as those which the deputy sheriff had given to Williams.

Outside of some irrelevant hearsay statements, as well as proof of the sale of'wine by appellant to others, the foregoing is the state’s case.

Appellant denied that he made the sale to Williams, and explained that the two $1 bills were in his possession because they had been given to him by another person who had made the sale of the bottle of wine to Williams.

The record reflects no reason why William, the alleged purchaser, was not called as a witness by the state. It appears .that he was available as a witness.

There being no evidence that appellant sold the wine to William, the facts are insufficient to support the conviction.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.  