
    PRICE v. STATE.
    (No. 4992.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 17, 1918.)
    1. Criminal Law &wkey;>1090(l) — Appeal—Ab- . sence oe Bill of Exijeptions and Statement of Pacts.
    In the absence of bill of exception and statement of facts, t^.e only question raised is the sufficiency of the indictment.
    2. Intoxicating Liquors <&wkey;205(2) — Indictment — County Option Election.
    In a prosecution for selling liquor in dry territory, an allegation in the indictment that the commissioner’s court passed and published an order declaring the result of the local option election and prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor in the county, and thereupon such order was published for- the time and in the manner required by law, held sufficient, i
    3. Intoxicating Liquors <&wkey;222 — Indictment-Negativing Defenses.
    An indictment for selling_ liquors, having alleged the adoption of prohibition at a local option election held on a date more than two years prior to the date of the offense, need not allege that prohibition has not been removed by a subsequent election.
    Appeal from District Court, Cooke County; C. E. Spencer, Judge.
    Kirby Price was convicted of the offense of selling intoxicating liquors in a district where it was prohibited by law, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. ,
   MORROW, J.

Appellant was convicted for the offense of selling intoxicating liquors in a district where it was prohibited by law.

In the absence of bill of exceptions and statement of facts, the only question raised for review is that involving the insufficiency of the indictment. The criticism involves the proposition that the indictment is insufficient in the manner of the alleged publication of the result of the local option election. The terms used are as follows:

“And thereupon the commissioners’ court of said county did pass and publish an order declaring the result of said election and prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors in said county, and thereupon said order was published for the time and in the manner required by law.”

Practically the same allegations were held sufficient by this court in an opinion by Judge Ramsey in Watson v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 551, 107 S. W. 544, citing Key v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 77, 38 S. W. 773. The Watson Case has been frequently followed, and supports the action of the trial court in overruling the motion to quash.

The indictment charges the election at which the sale of intoxicating liquors was prohibited to have taken place May 28, 1910. The motion to quash involves the proposition that the date of the alleged offense was more than two years subsequent to the election mentioned, and that it is .incomplete in failing to show in some form that prohibition is still in force. Having been put in effect by the election previously, it would remain in effect unless abrogated by a subsequent election. The law does not require that the indictment shall negative the fact that there had been a subsequent election removing the prohibition. Branch’s An. P. C. § 1233; Vernon’s P. C. pp. 311, 312; Timmins v. State, 199 S. W. 1107, and cases cited.

The judgment of. the lower court is affirmed.

PRENDERGAST, J„ absent.  