Segars v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
The charging part of the information is copied in the opinion. Defendant moved to quash the information upon the following, among other grounds, viz.: “It does not give the name of the party selling or delivering the (liquor), and does not state that the name of such party was unknown.”
1Opinion of the Court
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
Appellant was convicted of running a “blind tiger” in a local option territory. Several objections were urged to the information. Omitting the formal parts, the information reads as follows: “Did then and there unlawfuUy keep and run, and was then and there interested in keeping and running, a ‘blind tiger,’ in a place where intoxicating liquors were then and there sold, b)r a device whereby the party selling and delivering the same was then and there concealed from L. P. Baugh, who was then and there buying the same, and to whom the same was then and there…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Ex Parte HollingsworthCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1918
- Strong v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1907
- Schwulst v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1908
- Ex Parte MasseyCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1905
- Norwood v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1913