# Park v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · October 13, 1937 · 133 Tex. Crim. 375

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3976868

## Case

- **Full name:** Amos Park v. the State
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** October 13, 1937
- **Citations:** 133 Tex. Crim. 375; 111 S.W.2d 249; 1937 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 588
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Lattimore
- **Judges:** Lattimore, Hawkins
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3976868

## Opinion text

LATTIMORE, JUDGE. —
Conviction for violating the Texas Liquor Control Act; punishment, a fine of $350.00 and three months in the county jail.
Appellant complains because the exceptions, urged by him to be in the statute involved, were not negatived in the indictment; also because of the fact that the trial court refused to submit to the jury the question as to whether the inspectors, who bought the alleged liquor sold in violation of law and testified for the State, were accomplice witnesses; also because of the’ fact that the court refused to instruct the jury or submit to them the question as to whether Hall County was a. dry area.
The,first two questions referred to were decided adversely to appellant’s contention in the cases of Baker v. State, 106
*376
S. W. (2d) 308, and Stevens v. State, No. 18823 (page 333 of this volume), opinion this day handed down. We have no doubt under the facts appearing in the indictment and statement of facts herein but that Hall County, Texas, was a dry area at the time the alleged liquor was sold.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3976868. Public record. Not legal advice.