Stanley v. State
L. L. Stanley v. the State
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $35.
The facts show that appellant, owner of a distillery, made a trade with prosecuting witness, by which he would exchange a pint of brandy for every bushel of peaches witness would furnish him at his distillery.
The trade was carried out. Prosecuting witness delivered the peaches, and subsequently obtained from appellant fifty-six pints of peach brandy in payment for fifty-six bushels of peaches furnished. The question presented is whether or not this is a.sale under the local option law. We deem it unnecessary to enter into a discussion of this matter, as the question was decided adversely to appellant’s contention in Keaton v. State (Texas Crim. App.), 36 S. W. Rep., 440 . See also Commonwealth v. Clark, 14 Gray, 367 . The facts show an evasion of the local option law, and it would be immaterial that money was not paid. The exchange of any other commodity or goods for liquor, or liquor for goods, would bring it within the operation of the law.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.