
    RAMSEY v. STATE.
    (No. 7444.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 14, 1923.
    Rehearing Denied May 9, 1923.)
    1. Criminal law <®=598(3)— Absence of witnesses who promised to voluntarily appear no ground for continuance. .
    Representations by witnesses that they would voluntarily come and testify for defendant do not justify reliance thereon or present any excuse for not taking their depositions, so that their absence is not a ground for a continuance.
    2. Intoxicating liquors <©=>236(20) — Conviction of transporting sustained.
    Evidence tha.t defendant was driving a car containing liquor, and fled from the scene of an accident which revealed the presence of such liquor, helé sufficient to sustain a conviction of transporting intoxicating liquor.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    3. Intoxicating liquors <©=>13 — Act requiring permit for manufacture, sale, etc., for medicinal and other excepted purposes held not unconstitutional.
    The Dean Law, as amended by Acts 37th Leg. 1st Called Sess. (1921) c. 61 (Vernon’s Amu Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588¼ et seq.), requiring a permit for the manufacture, sale, etc., of intoxicating liquors for medicinal, mechanical, scientific, or sacramental purposes, helé not invalid'as contrary to the constitutional amendment forbidding the manufacture, sale, etc., of such liquors except for such purposes.
    4.Intoxicating liquors <©=>221 — Indictment charging unlawful transportation for other than medicinal, mechanical, scientific, or sacramental purposes held sufficient.
    An indictment charging unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquors for other than medicinal, mechanical, scientific, or sacramental purposes helé not fundamentally defective as charging no offense, irrespective of the question as to the validity of Acts 37th Leg. 1st Called Sess. (1921) " c. 61 - (Yernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588½ et seq.), requiring a permit for the manufacture, sale, etc., of intoxicating liquors for such purposes, the question of such permit being of no concern to one not transporting liquors for one of such purposes.
    Appeal from District Court, Titus County; R. T. Wilkinson, Judge.
    Elgin Ramsey was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    I. N. Williams, of Mt. Pleasant, for appellant'.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Titus county of transporting intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.

The indictment in this case was returned ori January 6, 1922, and the case was called for trial in June of said year. Appellant then presented an application for continuance based on the absence of two witnesses, one of whom was alleged to live in Arkansas and the other in Louisiana. It is stated that both of said witnesses had assured appellant that they would voluntarily come and testify in his behalf. Such representation affords no justification of reliance thereon, and presents no excuse for not taking the deposition of said witnesses in accordance with our statute. The testimony is ample to show that appellant was driving a oar in which there was a large quantity of liquor on the occasion in question. A car accident revealed the presence of said liquor. Appellant fled. The evidence supports the verdict

Finding no error in the record, an affirmance is ordered.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant now contends that the indictment herein is fundamentally defective, and charges no offense against the laws of this state: Said indictment charges in the usual form that appellant did then and there unlawfully, and not for medicinal, mechanical, scientific, or sacramental purposes, transport spirituous, vinous, and intoxicating liquors and malt liquors capable of producing intoxication, et'c. Appellant’s contention is that the amendment to the Dean Law contained in chapter 61, Acts 1st Called Sess. 37th Leg., is unlawful and invalid, in that it is contrary t'o the purport and effect of the constitutional amendment forbidding the manufacture, sale, etc., of intoxicating liquor. We find ourselves entirely unable to agree with appellant’s contention. The constitutional amendment permits the manufacture, sale, etc., of intoxicating liquors for four excepted purposes. In the enactment of the Dean Law the Legislature saw fit to put a restrictive regulation, upon the manufacture, sale, etc., of such liquors for said excepted purposes, by requiring the persons who so attempt to do to procure a permit. The question of a permit -has no application and is of no concern to one who is not transporting liquors for one of the excepted purposes. The indictment alleges that appellant was transporting the liquors found in his possession for a purpose other than any of said exceptions.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing will be overruled. 
      <©=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     