OFFICE OFIHE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS
AUSTIN
Honorable Winston Bmamett
a0my iittortt6y
Makeian County
Dlokazus, %xas
Eon. alnston Bruinmcstt, page 2
of li uor, is stit out in the ssoond paragraph of
Art. 866-31, and Is d,aflned a8 any beverage oon-
tainlng mom than one-half of one peroent of al-
oohol by rolumo whioh is oapable of use GOTbever-
ace purpose8, eithas alone or when diluted.
*Of oourse thla
*Wine Tonlo* ia supposed to
be #old as a med~olac and/or something to *t&mu-
tit6 an& inorease the appetite and oontaining
rltanln Bl whatever that. is, the, iact that it
aonta~lns vfta%in Bl is stamped on the lribel bt-
taahed to each bottle. Howover, I hare Sound
nothlng under the Uquor atatutes authorlz~
the, sala .bf'in alomhb~ia ,btiveragse for beverage
,puxposes in a dry oouiity. Nor have I found any-
thing under ~aoyDrug +ot, a&horizing snah ~(11~.
immulas j *iah w6r6 maw-
and lawful. ptm
not aa~beYe%agea.* The guilty intent of the se r=** eata
sr, under
the rspe&.ed Act, wae question of faot to be decided against
him beforr\ a oonriotionnould stand. Lf the prod showed
theit..#e liquid w08 sola~fo~ m&iaSnql purposes =a not eia
a bevera& there eould~ be no oonvlotlon. HolXman v. State,
299 & W.~ 249.
-T.-
- -
- r
Honorable Winston Brammtt, page 3
Under tihaTexas Liquor Control Aat howovar thma
la ao saoh axoeption, If one in a "dry amaR sallrr *any
bereraga oontalnlng mre than one-hali of one eroant of
aloohol by o&me whioh la oapabls of use for %average pur-
poaaa aithar alone or whan dilutad,m he haas oomcaitted an
0% &6oler@d by the law to be unlawful.
.Ths question ubather a givenalc~ohollo liquid
is ca bls of belag wed aa a beverage manlfcatly 1s the
quest p"on-for dstermlnatioa and is a question of foot. Th$re
$8 no.marked dividing line. botwoenthoae liquids whfahare
ganer&llyknowto bs for beverage purposes anathosewhloh
are atrlctly medloinal or imn-beverage. It should be notload
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion