
    GREEN v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 12, 1913.)
    Intoxicating Diquoks (§241) — Local Option Law — Violation—Record—Operation of Law — Necessity of Siiowing.
    The record in a prosecution for violating the local option law must show that the local option law was in effect in the county in which the sale was alleged to. have occurred.
    [Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 349-354; Dec. Dig. § 241.]
    Appeal from Matagorda County Court; W. S. Holman, Judge.
    J. H! Green was convicted of violating the local option law, and appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Liiin, Conger & Austin, of Bay City, for appellant. O. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law. There are some questions of more or less moment in the case; but, inasmuch as the record does not show that the local option law was in force and effect in Matagorda county, this conviction cannot be sustained. It is necessary, under the law of this state and the decisions of this court, that it be shown by the record that local option law was in effect in the territory where the ál-leged sale occurred in violation of said law; otherwise, the law could not be violated. It is unnecessary to discuss this question. It has been so often decided that authorities are not necessary.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.  