
    HART v. STATE.
    (No. 3652.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 25, 1915.)
    Intoxicating Liquors <@=>236 — Criminal Prosecutions — Sufficiency of Evidence.
    On a trial in 1915 for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors on or about January 1, 1915, the state proved that prohibition was m force in the county under an election held in 1904. A witness testified positively to the sale to him by accused of whisky in 1915, and that “I bought said whisky this year. This year is 1904.” Held, that the evidence supported a verdict of guilty, as it was clear that the witness intended 1915, and not 1904, and no one could have understood otherwise.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 300-322; Dec. Dig. <§=> 236.]
    Appeal from Johnson County Court; B. Jay Jackson, Judge.
    Tom Hart was convicted of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PRENDERGAST, P. J.

On March 11, 1915, the grand jury indicted appellant for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors to Emmett Williams on or about January 1, 1915. The case was on the same day properly transferred to the county court, and he duly tried on March 17, 1915. He was convicted, and his punishment assessed at 60 days in jail and a fine of $100.

The state proved that prohibition was properly in force in said county under an election, etc., in 1904, and this was also admitted. Said Williams, after testifying positively to the sale to him by appellant of a half pint of whisky in 1915, said: “I bought said whisky this year. This year is 190Jf.” The only other witness was appellant himself, who testified: “I never sold Emmett Williams a half pint of whisky, or any amount of whisky, in my life.”-

By the charge the court required the jury to believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant “did on or about the 1st day of January, 1915, in Johnson county, Tex., sell intoxicating liquor to one Emmett Williams as charged in the indictment,” etc., before they could convict him; also the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt. In addition, he gave appellant’s special charge that, if they believed said Williams purchased the whisky testified to by him from appellant, “in the year 1904,” to acquit him. The only point in the case is based on said Williams’ testimony quoted above. It seems clear that, when the witness said “this year is 1904,” he meant and intended 1915, and no one could have understood otherwise. At any rate, under the pleadings, evidence, and charge of the court, the verdict is neither contrary to the law, nor to the evidence, which áre the only grounds of his motion for new trial.

The judgment is affirmed.  