
    Bob Stephens v. The State.
    No. 3106.
    Decided February 22, 1905.
    1. —Giving Liquor to Minor—Local Option.
    Where local option has been adopted, the law prohibiting the giving of intoxi-" cants to minors has not been suspended, as in case of sales, and is not inconsistent with the local option law.
    2. —Same—Constitutional Law—Police Power.
    It is within the constitutional power of the Legislature, under its police power, to pass a statute inhibiting the gift of intoxicants to a minor.
    Appeal from the County Court of Hall. Tried below before Hon. J. F. Bradley.
    Appeal from a conviction of giving liquor to a minor; penalty, a fine of $25.
    The opinion states the case.
    Ho brief for appellant.
    
      Howard Martin, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
   BROOKS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of giving liquor to a minor, in a local option territory, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $25.

The undisputed testimony shows that the local option law was in force in Hall County at the time of the gift. Appellant insists that the law prohibiting the sale of intoxicants to minors had been suspended in said county by reason of the adoption of the local option law. This contention seems to be supported by Atkinson v. State, 9 Texas Ct. Rep., 756, so far as the sale of intoxicants to minors is concerned. But we take it that the law prohibiting the giving of intoxicants to minors has not been suspended; nor is it inconsistent with the local option law. This court has held that it is unconstitutional for the Legislature to authorize the inhibition of the gift of intoxicants in a local option territory. But clearly it is not unconstitutional for the Legislature under its police power to pass a statute inhibiting the gift of intoxicants to a minor. The provisions of the statute in reference to giving intoxicants to minors was intended to protect the youth of the country against demoralization incident to the drinking of whisky, and is clearly á legitimate exercise of the police power. The evidence in this case shows a mere gift of the liquor to the minor,.and that it was knowingly done. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.  