This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1916 edition. Excerpt: ... See Introductory Chap., Forms 1 and 2, and follow indictment in Art. 401 down to asterisk, and allege did then and there unlawfully keep and run, and was then and there interested in keeping and running, a Blind Tiger for the purpose of selling intoxicating liquor, and he did then and there unlawfully sell to Richard Roe one drink or one pint, or one bottle, as the case may be of whiskey or other intoxicating liquors, as the ease may be. Conclusion and signature. See Introductory Chap., Form 9. B. Allegation. (a) Keeping blind tiger, and selling intoxicating liquors. The allegation that defendant kept a blind tiger, without further description, is sufficient, and the allegation that he sold intoxicating liquors does not make the indictment duplicitous. Segars v. St., 35 T. Cr. 45 (31 S. V. 370). (b) Local option and election. That a local option election had been held in the prohibited district; that the county commissioners court had declared the result, and that publication was made to put the same in force, must be alleged. Hall v. St., 3' T. Cr. 219 (39 S. ." 117), following Stewart v. St., 35 T. Cr. 391 (33 S. W. 1081). (c) Name of seller and purchaser must be alleged, or if the name of seller is unknown, that fact should be stated. Segars v. St., 40 T. Cr. 577 (51 S. W. 211). 2. Construction and elements. The accused who ran the blind tiger is liable for sale of intoxicating liquors made with his knowledge or assent, whether he made the sale or not. Segars v. St., 40 T. Cr. 577 (51 S. '. 211). Art, 406a. Drinking at storage house prohibited. If any person, firm or association of persons, agent or eniploye of any person, firm or association of persons who are engaged in the business or...