Ballard v. State

Appellant was convicted of the offense of being a “vagrant.” There was evidence offered on behalf of the state, tending to show “that appellant was a “bootlegger,” or was engaged in the “bootlegging business.” While a person may, no doubt, engage in “bootlegging” other things, the sale of which is prohibited by law, than “prohibited liquors,” as that term has come to be generally understood, yet we entertain no doubt that in this day of progressive prohibition, the court judicially knows, as everybody else knows, that the term: “bootlegger” describes, to the common understanding, one engaged…