
    KILKER v. STATE.
    (No. 7394.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 29, 1923.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 17, 1923.)
    Criminal law &wkey;>507(l) — Defendant may he convicted on testimony of party soliciting sale; “solicit.”
    Since the enactment of Acts 37th Deg. 1st Called Sess. (1921) c. 61, § 2c (Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588%a3), providing that purchaser, transporter, or possessor of intoxicating liquor, when a witness, is not an accomplice, a defendant may be convicted of selling liquor on the testimony of the person who solicited the sale, the use of the word “solicit” in section 2 in enumerating the acts prohibited not being sufficiently comprehensive to denounce such an act as a crime, in view of Penal Code, art. 6.
    [Ed. Note. — Por other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Solicit.]
    Appeal from District Court, Brown County; J. O. Woodward, Judge.
    Forest Kilker was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    A. L. Kirkpatrick and Scott & Davis, all .of Brownwood, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asst'. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for selling intoxicating liquor; punishment one year in the penitentiary.

The proof is positive that appellant sold whisky to one C. J. Skiles, the latter’s brother also being present. The Skiles boys were working for the officers. .This is undisputed. They solicited the sale of the whisky. The only contention is that they were accomplices, and that the conviction cannot stand on their testimony. The authorities cited by appellant' would have been in point and controlling prior to Acts 37th Legislature, 1st C. S. p. 233, § 2c. (Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588% a 3). By the express terms of that enactment, the purchaser, transporter, or possessor of intoxicating liquor, wh»n a witness, is not an accomplice.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

MORROW, P. J.

Chapter 61, § 1, Acts of fhe 37th Leg., 1st Called Session (Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art 588%) does not make the mere act of requesting another to give or to sell him intoxicating liquor an offense. One who buys intoxicating liquor is not under the disqualification of an accomplice witness, even though the same be made in response to the request.

The word “solicit” as embraced in the statute mentioned is not sufficiently comprehensive to denounce such act as a crime. See Penal Code, art. 6; also Webster’s New International Dictionary.

The motion is overruled. 
      ^=?For other cases see same topic ana KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     