Day v. State

Citations

• 21 Tex. Ct. App. 213
• 17 S.W. 262
• 1886 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 121

Syllabus

<p>1. Sunday Law.—Information charges that the defendant “did unlawfully on Sunday sell to certain persons to affiant unknown, certain drinks of whisky, said Day being then and there a liquor dealer.” The motion to quash was preuicated upon the proposition that the information was insufficient in that it failed to allege that the defendant was a “trader in a lawful business,” or that he was a “ retail liquor dealer.” Held, that “ liquor” is “ merchandise” within the meaning of Article 186 of the Penal Code, which provides that if any “ dealer in merchandise” shall barter or sell on Sunday, “he shall be punished,” etc., and the information was sufficient to charge the offense of selling on Sunday,</p> <p>2. Same—Practice—Complaint.—The defense moved the trial court to strike out the complaint because the same had not been filed in the county court. The court overruled the motion and ordered the complaint filed. Held, correct.</p> <p>3. Charge of the Court.—Having charged correctly upon the presumption of innocence, and the reasonable doubt, the trial court did not err in refusing a special charge to the effect that the burden was upon the State to prove the offense as alleged.</p> <p>4 Same.—Exceptions must be reserved to the charge of the court in misdemeanor eases, if objected to. Otherwise the charge will not be revised on appeal.</p>