Gandy v. State

CONCURRING OPINION.

HAWKINS, Judge.

The court so framed his charge that it authorized a conviction for the transportation of less than a quart of whiskey, and the contention is that the charge was erroneous because the evidence failed to show that the transportation was for the pur pose of sale. The contention is based on an amendment to the prohibition laws passed by the 38th Legislature, 2d C. S., Chapter 22. The law as so amended, among other things, provided that it should be unlawful to “transport” intoxicating liquor; also that it should be unlawful to “possess” it for the purpose of…