
    LOOPER v. STATE.
    (No. 3114.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 29, 1914.
    Rehearing Denied June 3, 1914.)
    Intoxicating Liquors (§ 236*) — Offenses— Evidence — Sufficiency.
    Uncorroborated evidence of a detective who admitted that he induced accused to make the sale in order to detect him in a violation of law, though contradicted by accused, will support a conviction for violation of the local option law.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 300-322; Dec. Dig. § 236.*]
    Appeal from Johnson County Court; J. B. Haynes, Judge.
    Jake Looper was convicted of violating the local option law, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    W. B. Featherstone, of Cleburne, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen.-, for the State.
   DAVIDSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law; his punishment being assessed at a fine of $25 and 20 days’ imprisonment in the county jail.

The state’s witness was named Small. He testified that his home was at Greenville, Tex., and that lie was in Johnson county in the employ of the county attorney to— “round up a few of these bootleggers. I had not been here oyer a week then. I came from Cresson here. I was visiting an uncle at Cres-son. I was born in Virginia, and my home is in Greenville, Tex. Small is my correct name. I went by the name of Ford because I didn’t know * * * didn’t want any one to know what my real name was when I -was working in this detective business, X was going by the name of Ford when I bought some of this whis-ky. I am to get $10 out of every conviction that I help get. * * * I got the money from Mr. Russell, county attorney, with which to buy this whisky. I got $5 from him about December 14th or 15th. I got it to buy whisky with. The county attorney told me he wanted to round up a few of these bootleggers.”

The defendant testified:

“I met Small down there at the pool hall about the time he says I did. He gave me a drink of whisky and the next day, or some time about that time — I had known him around there for about a week — he came in and said he wanted a drink, and asked me to go in with him and buy a half pint. I gave him a quarter, and he went off and came back with a half pint of whisky. X never at any time sold him a drop of intoxicating liquor. He drunk nearly all of the whisky I went in with him to buy.”

Without going into a detailed statement of the examination and cross-examination, this presents the theories of the state and the defendant. There is some evidence of contradictions and matters of that sort that usually arise in cases of this character which directly and indirectly affect the weight of the testimony and merits of the case; but the above is a sufficient statement.

Under the decisions of this court, this judgment will have to be affirmed. The detective testifies that he bought the whisky, and defendant denied it. The writer has had occasion to disagree with the majority of the court ■on the force and effect of the evidence of detectives coming in the shape that this detective places himself, and does not believe that the conviction ought to be sustained on his uncorroborated evidence. While it is true the statute says the conviction may be sustained upon the testimony of the purchaser of whis-ky in local option cases, yet it has been my understanding of that statute that it does not protect from the rule of accomplice testimony a man who deliberately works up •cases and induces his fellow men to commit crime; that that statute has no reference to that character of case. But my views have not obtained as the law. Under the decisions of the court, this judgment will be affirmed; and it is accordingly so ordered.  