Chenowith v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
The opinion states the case.
1Opinion of the Court
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
Having been convicted of violating the local option law, appellant prosecutes his appeal.
Several questions are suggested for revision, one of which we deem to be of controlling interest. Before passing to the discussion of that question we hold, that the court should have charged the jury in accordance with appellant’s request, to the effect that unless there was a sale a conviction could not occur, or rather if the beer was given to the alleged purchaser it would not be a violation of the law.
The question of serious moment, however, arises from the fact that the…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Day Land & Cattle Co. v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1887
- Argenti v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- McCracken v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Mayor of Balto. v. ReynoldsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1863
- Pimental v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Brooks v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1940
- Watson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1938
- Elkins v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1925
- Bickers v. LacyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1911
- Sweeten v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1938
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.