| Tex. App. | Jan 11, 1905
This is a suit for the recovery of statutory penalties for breach of a liquor dealer's bond. P. O. Cox is the principal in the bond and the other defendants are sureties. The petition charges that the defendant Cox breached the bond by permitting W. W. Thompson, a minor, to enter and remain in his saloon on three separate occasions. The jury found these allegations true, and returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $3,000. Judgment was entered accordingly, and the defendants have appealed. These findings are amply supported by testimony, and are not challenged in this court.
The first assignment of error complains of the action of the court authorizing a verdict for the plaintiff upon a preponderance of testimony, the contention being that, as this is a penalty suit, the plaintiff rested under the duty of establishing his case beyond a reasonable doubt. It has been repeatedly held in this state that in all civil cases the jury should decide according to the preponderance of the evidence. (Sparks v. Dawson,
The third, fourth and sixth assignments assail the verdict upon the *610 theory that there was no proof that P. O. Cox was a licensed liquor dealer, as alleged by the plaintiff. That objection was not urged against the verdict in the court below, and, for that reason, it can not be urged here.
Several objections are urged against the charge of the court, none of which is regarded as tenable. The charge was quite full, and submitted the case to the jury in as favorable a manner to the defendants as they were entitled to have it submitted.
The point is made that P. O. Cox's application for license to do business designated two places. The application described the place of business as "at number — J. A. Gamble Building, in the town of Hico, County of Hamilton, and part of lots numbers 11 and 12, in block number 3, division one." It does not seem to us that this description necessarily embraces two separate places of business. The Gamble building may have been located on parts of lots numbers 11 and 12, in block number 3, division one. But, if appellant's contention is correct, and the description does include two separate places, it does not follow that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. In Green v. Southard,
Numerous objections are urged against the validity of the statute requiring retail liquor dealers to give bond in the manner prescribed by the statute. These have all been considered, and are overruled. The most serious of these objections is the one which urges that the statute referred to is obnoxious to the fourteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution, as construed in Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co.,
There are some other questions presented in appellants' brief, all of which have received due consideration, and are decided against appellants.
No reversible error has been shown, and the judgment is affirmed.
Writ of error refused.
Affirmed.