
    SPARKS v. STATE.
    (No. 6735.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 8, 1922.)
    Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;13 — Prosecution under local option law held illegal after constitutional amendment.
    As the constitutional amendment (article 16, § 20) adopted May 24, 1919, repealed the section of the Constitution under which local option statutes were voted into existence, there was no local option law in force in September, 1919, and a prosecution for selling liquor at that time in violation of the local option laws must be dismissed.
    Appeal from District Court, Hopkins County; Geo. B. Hall, Judge.
    Buck Sparks was convicted of selling liquor in violation of the local option law,' and he appeals. Judgment reversed, and prosecution dismissed.
    Emmet Thornton, of Sulphur Springs, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State,
   LATTIM.OKE, J.

This is an appeal from the district court of Hopkins county in which appellant was convicted for selling liquor in violation of the Local Option Law, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.

The indictment alleges the adoption of the local option law in Hopkins county in 1901, and that it was in force in said county in September, 1919, at which time it was further alleged that appellant unlawfully engaged in, pursued, and followed the occupation of selling liquor in said county in violation of said law. Appellant made a motion to quash the indictment based on the fact that by the constitutional amendment (article 16, § 20) adopted May 24, 1919, and made effective by proclamation July 3, 1919, that the section of our Oonstitution under which local option statutes were voted into existence was repealed, and that consequently there was no such local option law in existence when this indictment was returned and at the date of the charge therein laid. The exact question was discussed and decided in favor of appellant’s contention in Cone v. State (Tex. Or. App.) 236 S. W. 486. The matter here involved is fully stated and discussed in said opinion, and need not now be repeated by us. For the reasons therein given, this judgment will be reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.  