Thе conviction is for unlawfully transporting beer in a dry area, with two prior convictions of offenses of like character alleged to enhance the penalty; the punishment, one year in jail.
*114 The record reflects that the appellant was not reprеsented by counsel until his motion for new trial was filed, in which he urged many claimed errors occurring during the trial which are here urged as grounds for a reversal of the conviction.
Appellant first insists that the court committed fundamental error in denying him the right to show the purpose for which he possessed the beer as a defense to the offensе with which he was charged.
Such contention is presented by Formal Bill оf Exception No. 1, wherein it is certified that, under the rulings of the court, the appellant was not allowed to show the purpose fоr which he possessed the beer in question as a defense to thе offense with which he was charged.
The bill clearly certifies error, calling for. a reversal of the case.
The offense charged is under Art. 666-4, Vernon’s Ann. P.C., which makes it unlawful for any person to transport bеer in a dry area.
Art. 666-23a (1), Vernon’s Ann. P.C., reads: “It is provided that any person who purchases alcoholic beverages for his own consumption may transport same from a place where the sale thereof is legal to a place where the possession thereof is legal.”
In giving application to this provision of thе statute, it has been held that the transportation of an alcoholic beverage from a wet area into a dry area for one’s own personal use is not unlawful. Walton v. State,
Art. 666-23a (1), supra, is аn exception to Art. 666-4, supra; and, in order to receive the bеnefits thereof, it was incumbent upon the appellant to bring himself within the exception. Brooks v. State,
The court was in error in' сharging the' jury under the provisions of Art. 666-27, Vernon’s Ann. P.C., as a prosecution for
*115
transporting beer in a dry area, under Art. 666-4, supra, is not governed by the provisions of Art. 666-27, supra, dealing with liquor transported into or upon a public highway in the state and requiring a written statement showing the consignor and consignee. Long v. State,
It is observed that, in alleging the prior convictions in the complaint and information, it was not alleged that the second conviction was for an offense committed subsequent to the first conviction. Where prior convictions are allеged for the purpose of enhancing the punishment, it is necesary that it be alleged and that the proof show that the succeeding conviction was subsequent to the prior conviction, both in pоint of time of the commission of the offense as well as the conviction therefor. Simpson v. State,
The other contentions will not bе discussed as the questions presented will not likely arise upon anоther trial.
For the errors pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Opinnion approved by the Court.