Perryman v. State

<p>1. —Delivering Intoxicating Liquors—Local Option—Indictment—Negative Exceptions.</p> <p>By section 12 of the Act of August 21, 1913, it is specifically provided that it shall not be necessary in a prosecution under said Act to negative the exceptions, but such exceptions shall be available as purely defensive matters, and, where the indictment was otherwise sufficient, there was no error in overruling a motion to quash. Following Johnson v. State, 75 Texas Crim. Rep., 177.</p> <p>2. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of transporting, carrying and delivering intoxicating liquors to a person living in local option territory, the evidence sustained the conviction, there was no error. Davidson, Judge, dissenting.</p> <p>3. —Same—Evidence—Other Transactions.</p> <p>Upon trial of unlawfully transporting and delivering intoxicating liquors into local option territory, testimony was admitted as to other similar transactions, there was no reversible error. Following Hardgraves v. State, 61 Texas Crim. Rep., 325, and other cases.</p> <p>4. —Same—Evidence—Unwilling Witness—Refreshing Memory.</p> <p>Upon trial of felony, where the record on appeal showed that the prose-i cuting witness was a very unwilling witness, there was -no error in permitting the district attorney to read over said witness’s testimony on the examining trial for the purpose only of refreshing the memory of the witness.</p> <p>[Rehearing denied March 3, 1915.—Reporter.]</p>