Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

41 Tex. 220

State v. Heldt

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1874

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1874-07-01

Tried below before the Hon. M. L. Crawford. The indictment in this case charged that M. Heldt, on December 1, 1872, “ did unlawfully, arid contrary to the special statute in such case made and provided, approved May 23, 1871, sell intoxicating and spirituous liquors to divers persons to the grand jurors unknown, within less than two miles of Douglassville College, in said county.” The defendant excepted to the indictment, because it did not state to whom the liquor was sold,…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1874-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 1934

6 state decisions

201874188018901900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Moore, Associate Justice.

¶1The exceptions to the indictment are not well taken. The offense for which appellee is indicted is charged substantially in the words of the statute. It was unnecessary to designate the house or the place where the liquor was sold with more exactness and particularity than is done in the indictment. ÍTor was it absolutely essential to give the name of the person to whom the liquor was sold. If, as alleged in the motion to quash, there was no such place as Douglassville College at the date of the alleged violation of the law under which the indictment was found, by reason of said college having become a public school, as stated in the motion, the court could not judicially know the fact, and it was therefore no ground for quashing the indictment. If such is the fact, and by reason thereof it ceased to be an offense to sell spir*222ituous liquors within the limits prescribed in the statute under which this indictment was found, appellee could have availed himself of it by plea of not guilty, but not by motion to quash..

¶2The judgment is reversed and the case remanded.

¶3Reversed and remanded.

/41/tex/220 · .json · Public domain