Appellant was convicted of being drunk in a public place.
The facts, without dispute, show that if appellant was drunk it was at the private residenсe of Charlev Knox. The facts further show, without dispute, that Knox resided about five miles east of the town of Breckenridge; that on the night of the first of February, 1907, Knox and his wife gavе an entertainment to a few friends, and only to those who were invited. It was an exclusive affair, and confined only to those invited. Among the families in* *463 vited were those оf Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Pugh, father of appellant. These guests met at the residence оf Knox, as before stated, at the invitation of Knox and wife, and that Knox and wife did not оn this or any other occasion throw open the doors of their residence for public entertainment of any sort, and that it was not a place where suсh entertainments were given; nor where people commonly resorted for the purpose of recreation, entertainment or amusement and had never been. This is the testimony of Knox and wife. They further stated that they had never given any social entertainment except on one occasion prior to thе occasion mentioned, which had occurred about eight months before appellant was charged with being drunk. In regard to appellant’s condition it was shown by the testimony that some time after the parties had assembled, appellаnt was seen lying down in the yard apparently sick, and some of the evidence shоws that he vomited; and there is also evidence to the effect that one or more of the witnesses detected the odor of intoxicating liquors about his pеrson. No witness testified to having seen or even known of his taking a drink of intoxicating liquor, nоr was he seen in possession of any.
There are several interesting questions presented for revision which we deem unnecessary to discuss, inasmuch as under our view of the law and the evidence, if it be conceded that appellant was drunk, that this did not occur at a public place. The private residence of Knox and his wife was not a public 'place, under the statute, nor was there any fаct introduced in evidence which shows or tends to show that it was such public place. See Bordeaux v. State,
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.
jReversed and remanded.