Isom v. StateIsom v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Ramsey
Appellant was convicted in the county court of Fannin County for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors in violation of the local option law.
Thе judgment of the court below is reversed for the error of the court below in admitting the testimony of the witness McKee of the arrest of оne Merrill on the sidewalk in Bonham, for drunkenness. Alsо for error of the court in admitting the testimony of the witness Browning as to the arrest of one Gilliаm at White’s restaurant. McKee testified, in substance, that on the 18th day of March, 1907, he arrested one Merrill on the sidewalk in Bonham for drunkennеss; that he put Merrill in the calaboose, аnd that next day he came out, pleadеd guilty and was fined. That afterwards he was severаl times arrested and put in the calaboоse, and each time fined for drunkenness.
The State, over defendant’s objection, was permitted to prove by the witness Browning that he аrrested one Rube Gilliam for drunkenness, and that hе was fined and imprisoned for that offense. Thu. testimony as well as that of McKee was admittеd as explained by the court in his qualificatiоn of the bill of exceptions to prove that the drink sold prosecuting witness was intoxicаting. There was some evidence tending to show that Gilliam was drinking on a train, and it was claimed that he came to appellant’s plаce of business in a state of intoxication. It was also shown that Merrill, whose drunkenness and аrrest was proved, had whisky in his pocket when arrested and there was some testimony showing thаt he was drunk when he came to where appellant was employed. Both of these parties, Merrill and Gilliam, were shown by the testimony of Carter to have been in the plaсe where appellant was emplоyed at the *439 time of the alleged sale tо Carter. We do not believe, as presented in this record, that the arrest and conviction of Merrill and Gilliam for drunkenness were proper to be proved to show that the drinks sоld Carter were intoxicating. While not directly in point, the principle” of the following cases seems applicable: Hays v. State, 47 Texas Crim. Rep., 149; 11 Texas Ct. Rep., 144; Marks v. State, 9 Texas Ct. Rep., 309; Williаms v. State, 38 Texas Crim. Rep., 128; Johnson v. State, 2 Texas Ct. Rep., 414; Ware v. State, 36 Texas Crim. Rep., 597; and Denton v. State, 1 Texas Ct. Rep., 567.
For the error of the court in admitting thе testimony above referred to, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the cause is remanded.
Reversed and remanded.