
    B. U. McQueen v. The State.
    No. 19521.
    Delivered March 9, 1938.
    State’s rehearing granted April 20, 1938.
    Rehearing denied June 8, 1938.
    The opinion states the case. .
    
      
      Eugene F. Mathis, of San Angelo, for appellant.
    
      Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Attorney, of Austin, for the State.
   Christian, Judge.

The offense is possession of intoxicating liquor in a dry area for the purpose of sale; the punishment, a fine of $300.00.

No complaint appears anywhere in the record before this Court. Hence no jurisdiction is shown in the county court. See Article 415, C. C. P.; and Olivares v. State, 76 S. W. (2d) 140.

The judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

ON STATE’S motion for rehearing.

Graves, Judge.

This cause has heretofore been reversed and dismissed because of the fact that no complaint appeared in the record brought before us.

By motion duly filed by the State’s Attorney, it is made to appear that the failure to embody such complaint in the record was an inadvertence upon the part of the county clerk, and a certified copy of such complaint having been furnished us in a supplemental transcript, showing its filing at the proper time, the order dismissing such prosecution is set aside, and we will proceed to consider such case upon its merits.

The appellant filed a motion to quash the complaint and information, alleging that they failed to charge an offense against the laws of this State. We have examined them and they appear to be in line with the decisions of this Court, and are such as we have uniformly upheld.

The statement of facts is short and shows, in substance, that upon a search of appellant’s premises in Runnels County, in July, 1937, officers found 48 twelve ounce cans of beer, said beer containing alcohol in excess of one-half of one per cent, by volume, and that such county was a “dry area” at such time.

The charge seems to be correct and the proof sufficient.

This cause is therefore affirmed.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

Krueger, Judge.

Appellant insists that the Court erred in holding the complaint and information sufficient to charge the offense. An examination thereof convinces us that the case was properly disposed of in our original opinion. The statement of facts is adequate to support the conviction.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.  