Jones v. StateJones v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Hawkins
Conviction is for transporting whisky in Angelina County, which was admitted to be “dry аrea”; punishment assessed by the jury at a fine of $100.00.
Appellаnt was shown to have been a taxicab driver. The statemеnt of facts reflects that on August 14, 1948, two employees of the liquor control board were in a car parked at a point from which they could observe the “Black Cat” which was a beer place located behind a paсkage store in Trinity County, where the sale of beer and whisky was lаwful. The officers saw appellant drive his cab to a point near the beer and liquor stores. There was a Negro passenger, one Otto Davis, in the cab. The officers tеstified that Davis went into the package store and came out with a package in his hand. It was in a paper sack, and looked like a “fifth of a quart.” One of the officers testified that all they sold in the package store was “whiskey and wine.” After seeing Davis get into the cab with the package, the officers drove across the. line into Angelina County, and parked their car. In about fifteen minutes appellant passed them with Davis in the cab. The officers followed the cab and directed appellant to stop. Whеn they walked up to the cab, Davis had the paper sаck either in his hand or in his lap. One of the officers asked him whаt he had and Davis replied that he had a fifth of a quart of whisky but that it had not been opened. The officers took charge of the whisky and then searched the cab but found no other liquor. They had no search warrant, or warrant of arrest.
Appellant objected to the testimony of the officеrs and the introduction of the whisky in evidence, contending that the search was illegal. He brings forward several bills of excеption on this point, all of them qualified by the trial court to thе effect that he found probable cause existed for the search of the cab. We are inclined to the viеw that the trial court was correct in his holding.
Appellant аrgues that because the whisky found was less than a quart and belоnged to Davis and because he could transport it in dry arеa without a violation of the law, that likewise the same exemption should apply to appellant. This is the precise argument advanced in Wideman v. State, 152 Texas Crim. 177, 212 S. W. (2d) 177, from the same county and trial before the *553same judge who tried the present case. Under the authority of thе case mentioned, appellant’s position cannot be sustained.
It was appellant’s contention that he had no knowledge that Davis had the whisky until it was taken from him by the offiсers. Davis testified to the same effect upon this point. The evidence raised the issue as to whether appellant knew Davis had the whisky in question. The court instructed the jury that if they believed from the evidence that appellant had nо knowledge that Davis had the whisky to find appellant not guilty. The issue was determined against appellant. Under all the facts we would be without authority to disturb the jury’s finding.
The judgment is affirmed.