Legal Opinion

Schwulst v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided January 29, 1908No. 4103PublishedCited by 4 opinions

The opinion states the case.

1Opinion of the Court

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted under article 406 of the Penal Code for selling intoxicants in local option territory in a blind tiger. One of the questions raised is the sufficiency of the indictment, which we deem unnecessary to discuss specifically.

We think the statute defining and prohibiting the sale of liquor by means of a blind tiger is not violative of a constitutional provision, and it is within the power of the Legislature to prohibit sales of intoxicants in this manner, and prescribe a higher punishment for this character of sale than is provided against other…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Smith v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1895
  2. Potts v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1906
  3. Deon v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1897
  4. Bogle v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1900
  5. Segars v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1899

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Fitch v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1910
  2. Moreno v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1911
  3. Moreno v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1911
  4. Norwood v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1913

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API