Wooldridge v. State
A. E. Wooldridge v. the State
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
LATTIMORE, Judge. — Conviction for violating the liquor laws of this State; punishment, a fine of $75.00.
The facts in this case, the contentions made, and the legal principles involved, bring it within the comprehension of the decision of Stevens v. State, No. 18823, opinion this day handed down (page 333 of this volume). See, also, Baker v. State, 106 S. W. (2d) 308 . For the reasons stated in the above authorities, the judgment in this case if affirmed.
Affirmed.
Addendum
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
KRUEGER, Judge. — Appellant, in a very able and carefully prepared motion for rehearing, earnestly insists that we erred in holding, on original submission of this case, that the inspectors of the Liquor Control Board were not accomplice witnesses. In support of the conclusion announced in the original opinion herein, we cited the case of Stevens v. State (page 333 of this volume), delivered on October 13, 1937, where a similar question as here presented was thoroughly and extensively discussed by this court, and upon authority of that case, the motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.