
    FRANKLIN v. STATE.
    (No. 6058.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 26, 1921.)
    Criminal law <&wkey;5IO — Purchaser of liquor must be corroborated.
    The rule prescribed by Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 801, that accomplice’s testimony must be corroborated, applies, in a prosecution for the sale of intoxicating liquors, to witnesses purchasing; Acts 36th Leg. (1919), Second Called Session, e. 78, § 31, making the purchase unlawful, so that, even if the purchaser was not a principal offender with the seller, he is an offender, and his testimony would require corroboration, the identity of the offense not being essential.
    Appeal from District Court, Kaufman County; Joel R. Bond, Judge.
    Eugene Franklin was convicted of the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Wynne &' Wynne, of Kaufman, for appellant.
    Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, J.

Tiie appellant was convicted of tlie unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors. But one witness was used. He testified tliat lie ■ purchased intoxicating liquors from the appellant for beverage purposes and paid him therefor.

In the companion case (Franklin v. State, [No. 6059] 227 S. W. 486) we have expressed the view that the rule of accomplice testimony prescribed by article 801, Code of Criminal Procedure, would apply to the testimony of one who, knowing the unlawful purposes of the seller of intoxicating liquors, being present when it was committed, advised and encouraged the unlawful act. In addition to what is there said, it may be mentioned that section 31 of chapter 78, Acts of the Thirtw'Shsth Legislature, Second Called Session, declares that it shall be unlawful for any person within this state to purchase, for himself or' another, intoxicating liquors sold or bartered to him in violation of this act. It would seem, therefore, that even if the purchaser was. not a principal offender with the seller, his testimony against the seller would require corroboration. The identity of the offense would not be essential. This is- illustrated in the well-established rule which makes the thief an accomplice within the purview of article 801, Code of -Criminal Procedure, with the receiver of the stolen goods. Johnson v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. R. 244, 125 S. W. 16; Miller v. State, 4 Tex. App. 251; Crutchfield v. State, 7 Tex. App. 65.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. 
      i&wkey;>For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     