
    CHANDLER v. STATE.
    (No. 6249.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 11, 1921.)
    Criminal law <&wkey;507(l, 2) — Purchaser of liquor an “accomplice.”
    In a prosecution for selling intoxicating liquor to another in violation of the Dean Law, such other, the purchaser, is an accomplice of defendant.
    [Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, Eirst and Second Series, Accomplice.]
    Appeal from District Court, Kaufman County; Joel R. Bond, Judge.
    Clyde Chandler was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor to another, and he appeals.
    Reversed, and cause remanded.
    Wynne & Wynne, of Kaufman, Miller & Miller, of Athens, and Ross Huffmaster, of Kaufman, for appellant.
    R. H. Hamilton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Appellant was convicted for selling intoxicating liquor to one Beverley Jones. No witness testified in the case save the alleged purchaser. Complaint was made that the court failed to charge on accomplice testimony, and because, in the absence of corroborative evidence, he should have instructed a verdict of “not guilty.”

The case was tried before the opinion in the Robert Case, 228 S. W. 230, was handed down, wherein a purchaser was held to be an accomplice, under the provisions of what is known as the Dean Law (Laws [1st and 2d Called Sess.] 1919, c. 78). Under the authority of that case, and many since decided, the judgment of the trial court' must be reversed, and the cause remanded.  