
    HOOVER v. STATE.
    (No. 8125.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 26, 1924.)
    Intoxicating liquors <8=>2I9 — Indictment must name purchaser or state that name could not be ascertained.
    An indictment for unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor is insufficient if it fails to give the name of the purchaser, or to identify the transaction and state that the name could not be ascertained by the grand jury, in view of Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 464. ^
    Appeal from District Court, Orange County ; V. H. Stark, Judge.
    Guy Hoover was convicted of unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, and appeals.
    Reversed, and prosecution dismissed.
    Howth & O’Piel and Lamar Hart, all of Beaumont, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The offense is the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for 1½ years.

The indictment fails to name the purchaser or to give any reason for the failure to do so. The motion to quash, the indictment should have been sustained. Compliance with the constitutional and statutory provisions touching certainty demands that in an indictment of this nature the name of the purchaser should be given, if known. If not, then the indictment should identify the transaction and state that the name could not be ascertained by the grand jury. This rule was established by the Supreme Court of this state in Alexander’s Case, 29 Tex. 496, and has since been given effect in many decisions of this court, notably Dixon v. State, 21 Tex. App. 517, 1 S. W. 448, and others therein cited. Moreover, the statute declares that in such an indictment the name of the purchaser must be given. Article 464, C. C. P.

The judgment is reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed. 
      <§saFor other cases see same topic and KEY-N UMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     