
    LOFTIN v. STATE.
    (No. 8224.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 7, 1924.)
    intoxicating liquors &wkey;>2l9 — Indictment omitting /name of alleged purchaser in liquor prosecution held insufficient.
    An indictment in a prosecution for the sale of intoxicating liquor which omitted name of alleged purchaser was insufficient, in view of Code Cr. Proc. art. 464.
    ^zoFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Appeal from District Court, Jasper County; V. H. Stark, Judge.
    Burl Loftin was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals.
    Reversed and dismissed.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for the sale of intoxicating liquor, with a punishment of one year in the penitentiary.

The indictment alleged the sale of intoxicating liquor, but omitted the name of the alleged purchaser. A motion to quash the indictment because of this omission was presented and overruled.

Article 464, C. C. P., reads as follows:

“In an indictment for selling intoxicating liquors in violation of any law of this state, it shall be sufficient to charge that the defendant sold intoxicating liquors contrary to law, naming the person to whom sold, without stating the quantity sold; and, under such indictment, any act of selling in violation of the law may be proved.”

In addition to the foregoing statute, we cite Dixon v. State, 21 Tex. App. 517, 1 S. W. 448, Drechsel v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 580, 34 S. W. 934, Ex parte Campbell, 67 Tex. Cr. R. 171, 149 S. W. 193, as directly in point, and holding that it is absolutely essential to name the alleged purchaser, or, if the purchaser is unknown, to so allege with the other necessary averments under such circumstances. If there has ever been a variance from these holdings, we are not aware of it.

The judgment is reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.  