
    ENNIS v. STATE.
    (No. 7179.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 29, 1922.)
    Criminal law <&wkey;507(l) — Purchasers of intoxicants before 1921 amendment to Dean Act were accomplices, whose testimony must be corroborated.
    A conviction in 1920 for manufacturing intoxicants on the uncorroborated testimony of two persons, who purchased same before the amendment to the Dean Act in 1921 (Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588% et seq.), is void, since at that time purchasers were accomplices, and conviction could not be had on their uncorroborated testimony.
    cg=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Appeal from District Court, Shelby County; Chas. L. Brachfield, Judge.
    Roy Ennis was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    .Reversed and remanded.
    D. M. Short & Sons,, of Center, for appellant.
    • R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   LATTIMOEE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Shelby county of the offense of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of one year.

The only complaint presented here is the insufficiency of the testimony. An examination of the statement of facts discloses that but two witnesses testified for the state. The date of the offense as charged in the indictment was November, 1919, and the indictment was returned in February, 1920. Under these facts, it is evident that-the case must be tried under the law as it existed prior to the amendment to the Dean Act in 1921. From this it follows that under the law necessarily prevailing in the trial of this case the purchaser of intoxicating liquor was an accomplice, and a conviction could not be had upon the uncorroborated testimony of one accomplice, or any number of such accomplices. Both the'witnesses who testified for the state admitted themselves participants in the purchase of the intoxicating liquor in question. Both had contributed money to make up an aggregate sum used in the purchase of said liquor. Both of said witnesses were thus accomplices within the meaning of our law. There being no testimony corroborative of that of said accomplices, the conviction- of appellant was contrary to the law and must be reversed. Townsend v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 552, 236 S. W. 100; Chandler v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 297, 231 S. W. 108; Phillips v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 241 S. W. 146.

For the reason mentioned, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded.  