Bray v. StateBray v. State
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Edwards
The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Pontotоc county on a charge of buying land in suit and sentenсed to pay a fine of $400.
It appears from the record that on March 3, 1924, the defendant took a conveyance of certain land in Pontotoc county while the same was the subject of a suit in the district court of said county. It is undisputed that the deed of conveyance was executed and delivered in Oklahoma county and on the same day was recorded in Pontotoc county. The only contеntion that it is necessary to consider is that the county court of Pontotoc county did not have jurisdictiоn of the offense sought to be charged, for the reason that the offense, if committed, was com *38 mittеd in Oklahoma county. Section 20, art. 2, of the Constitution in part reads:
“In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to a speedy and publiс trial by an impartial jury of the county in which the crime shall have been committed. * * *”
The offense for which thе defendant was prosecuted is defined by sectiоn 1678, Comp. St. 1921, as follows :
“Any person who takes any conveyance of any lands or tenements, or of any interest or estate therein, from any person nоt being in the possession thereof, while such lands or tenements are the subject of controversy, by suit in any сourt, knowing the pendency of such suit, and that the grantоr was not in possession of such lands or tenements, is guilty оf a misdemeanor.”
From an inspection of this seсtion of the statute, it is obvious that the taking of the cоnveyance under the conditions inhibited therein constitutes the offense. It is complete when the instrument оf conveyance is executed and deliverеd. The subsequent placing on record of the conveyance is not made any part of the offense. So it follows that, when the deed of conveyаnce was executed and delivered in Oklahoma county, if the conditions forbidden by the statute then obtained, the offense was complete and the conveyance was in that county. The subsequent transmitting аnd recording of the instrument of conveyance in Pоntotoc county did not give the court of that cоunty jurisdiction of an offense committed in Oklahoma сounty. The Legislature has not attempted to confer jurisdiction for such an offense on the court of the county where the conveyance is recorded or where the land is situated, and under the section of the statute above quoted it is probably not in the power of the Legislature to invest such *39 county with jurisdiction. 8 R. C. L. p. 99, § 59; Walls v. State, 32 Ark. 565; Wilson v. State, 16 Okla. Cr. 471, 184 P. 603.
The case is reversed and remanded, with instructions to the lower court to dismiss.
BESSEY, P. J., and DOYLE, J., concur.