¶1I concur in reversing the judgment in this case. But I do not concur in the opinion in so far as it holds that the operation of the local option act, when adopted in a locality, has the effect to revoke licenses previously granted. I hold that an act of the Legislature cannot have this effect unless it contains an express provision revoking such licenses.
1 Tex. L. R. 542
State v. Robertson
Decided November 15, 1882
Court of Appeals of Texas · decided 1882-11-15
<p>Local option — Revocation of liquor licence — In a prosecution for violation of the local option law, the defense was that the defendant, having purchased an occupation license to sell intoxicating liquors for twelve months, and having paid the tax therefor, the State has no power bylaw to revoke the license; and that if it has such power, it can only be exercised in a direct manner by a ■statutory enactment expressly revoking the license.</p> <p>Held, That the authorities bearing upon the question are conflicting, and it Is still an open question, Willson, J., deciding, however, that the weight of authorities sustains the proposition that the Legislature has full control of the subject, and can revoke occupation licenses at pleasure, and that whenever prohibition is declared in any locality it has the effect to revoke all licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors within that locality; Hurt, J., dissenting.</p> <p>Same — Penalty—Repealed act. — Held, also, that art. 378 of the Penal Code is the law which prescribes the punishment for this offense. The act adopting the Codes repealed sec. 5 of the act of June 24, 1876, which was amended by ••act of April 17, 1879, making tbe penalty for this offense fine and imprison’ment, and it was error in the court to assess imprisonment as the punishment.</p>
Decided 1882-11-15