*1 Ex Parte Hart. 1900.~] Appellant was intoxicating BBOOKS, convicted of selling Judge. fine of at a his assessed day, on an election punishment
liquor filed to dismiss $100. has a motion The Assistant Attorney-General recog- reasons, to wit: The “(1) appeal, setting up following mis- of a forth been convicted nizance does not set that appellant 887, (Acts Criminal Procedure demeanor as article Code of required recognizance said 1897, offense described in '5). The page (2) follows: spirit- another of the whereabouts TJulawfully informing uous, vinous, malt, and on an election liquors day, intoxicating held lawful an election and there town where was then being above no known to as is authority/ such offense law being offense indictment attempted to be described. The in the (3) alleged described at variance to the in the recognizance, offense purported in- in this: indictment defendant charges unlawfully one John whereabouts of forming Bryan intoxicating liquor ar- the inhibited ‘at and near day, place/ polling required gravamen ticle of the Penal Code. (4) offense,charged indictment defined Penal Code in said by the article,is liquors location of said disclosed must be or near’ the polling ‘at where election is held. That place said is not (5) offense eo nomine an against laws of State.” We offense have examined and think the motion of recognizance, the Assistant Attorney- taken, well General is and the dismissed. appeal accordingly
Appeal dismissed. Judge, Davidson, Presiding absent.
Ex Parte Hazel Hart. 7, No. 1979. Decided March Daw—Corporation Courts. Constitutional 5, section article as amended in authorizes being еxpressly provided creation of in said amendment establish such other necessary courts as it “the deem organization prescribe thereof, jurisdic- conform the other inferior the district and thereto.” tion of This amendment is not justices 18 of conflict with which makes justices peace peace the number of to be elected in the counties. Cor- justices’ poration though courts are in sense within the limits of the they they cities where are created are vested with concurrent with justices’s arising Davidson, that of in offenses under our State laws. Judge, Presiding dissents. Appeal from the Court Grayson. Tried below before Hon. J. D. County Judge. Woods, from on a habeas
Appeal judgment corpus relator hearing whereby under custody remanded to conviction in the Corpora- tion Cоurt of the of Sherman. City to the original necessary.
Ho statement as case Beports. 41st Texas & Freeman, filed able brief Barrett, relator, sup- Simmons *2 following the argument: plemented court If of a the Court the Sherman is State Corporation city of State jurisdiction try with offenses the Penal Code the against of a of Legislature. is made so creátive act If the court court for the it a State creation of such any authority making offenses, of it is found the Mr. jurisdiction try opinion State State, Henderson, Justice the of Coombs v. Criminal case 672, in “I Reports, which is found the am not following: prepared habilitated, can not municipal brought that the courts be and mu- both our and to do double service into system, act the last courts.” We must submit that of and State the nicipal and of such corporation for the creation Legislature рroviding of not with the comply requirement them State does making for act said intimation. A court as the corporation of a corporation for its existence the existence depends upon municipal a creating and an ordinance of such municipal corporation State do officers provide court. The laws and Constitution of the not courts, but for such leave that to the action and discretion officers costs collected by Fines and the municipal corporation. treasury court for violation of are diverted from said State laws the into, then city. the This court treasury the State presents court, a to the control subject the State of a single anomaly against laws, State revenue's officer, offenses trying paying State the convicts treasury, a derived from said court into and punishing no a of a who has custody person imprisonment city prison State, and and to the laws Constitution of offieal known position no official. The creation example is under bond a State who Court, District opinion illustrating cited Dallas Henderson, is not anal- conveyed the idea intended to court, and con- creation our corporaton supports ogous creative Legis- above contained. In that case the tention court, creation of a which was exercised number of lature the court limited, in so created other than conferring and functions conferred by the Constitution jurisdiction courts, and for the election officers class of providing particular fines, diversion State not allow the оf any court. does crea- all with the constitutional things complies requirements it belongs. of the class of courts which tion and maintenance creation act authorizing it be that the legislative If conceded constitutional, if such maintenance of judicial system State courts a courts be constituting part must conform that, created, they then it must be conceded when courts. creation the State requirement constitutional for the and designates particular all offenses The Constitution grades dis- in which each shall be separate prosecuted, giving court grade ex- felonies, county all original jurisdiction trict court Ex Paste Hast. 1900.1 misdemeanors, and certain jurisdiction grade
elusive of a original all over justice and courts concurrent original jurisdiction county Constitution. other misdemeanors. See in any offense Legislature any Can provide prosecution for such prose- other than court the one provided by in any except can not prosecuted cution? We submit that a felony court, a over a justice a that misdemeanor district ex- court can not prosecuted court county create court. should county Legislature cept justice over offenses not a court with try county would it not be effect jurisdiction, court has justice it is court? The created a court which *3 court, contended á it a is denominated county corporation can court, in it the powers but conferred and criminal Then if court courts. said upon justice corporation matters conferred criminal functions at must be in effeсt all, State court with any is a a court, a the creation and maintenance of justice court. justice 18, 5, in section of Sherman violates article city court corporation and Constitution, of justice the creation providing admitted for each because the number thereof precinct; fixing in justice court Sherman situated that in corporation city at the time Ho. 1 and were County, in Grayson there precinct the creation of such said court, now, and are precinct, existence two courts. organized legal and justice duly 5, 21, of the direct the attention of the court to
We State “The shall says: attorney represent county in their re- and inferior courts in all in the district State cases 33 of laws re- counties.” Section spective chapter general lieves in corporation of the county appearing attorney duty fees, admit- him courts and of his if he does so appear. deprives Grayson ted court in the of Sherman is that the corporation city This duly county attorney. which has County, acting elected Constitution construed in case State clause of the was Texas, in that point. and we decision case Moore, think the Ellison, Collins, J. filed respondent, P. Wm. J. Wébb, G. P. for its which, brief and a most elaborate argument able Suffice it points here reproduce. would length,"the Beporter them are sustained by majority opinion relied fully court below. Grayson
BBOOKS, county-judge to the Judge. Applicant applied illegal- released from to be asking for a writ of habeas corpus, convicted had been alleging previously imрrisonment, applicant sit- city being said Sherman, Court of Corporation city two in existence already uated in Ho. justice being precinct charges Applicant said precinct. the'peace Eeports. 41st Texas Criminal the recorder before whom she was convicted of offi- vagrancy cer of the State of not, official his man- capacity, ner said responsible State; that one G.'P. Webb has assumed to act as Sherman, city said attorney or as at- prosecuting for said torney court; said court' was created under and by virtue of act of the Twenty-sixth Legislature entitled “An act towns, to establish and create in cities, each of the villages a State court to be known as the corporation town, such city, village, prescribe and organizаtion thereof, and to abolish courts”. Acts municipal (See Twenty-sixth Legislature, page 40); that said is uncon- act stitutional, that it violates the article of our judiciary Constitution. Upon hearing application, was remanded applicant that, custody officers said city, said holding applicant held in legally under custody restraint Blaine, J. M. chief of police city, from which order applicant to this court. appeals This before brings us for decision of what constitutionality known as the others, “corporation court.” case, together two was submitted Webb, able argument and brief G. P. and W. Esq., Ellison, P. at our Esq., late Tyler term, since which time we devoted much thought and consideration to brief and argument the able them, and have reached the con- conclusion, so strenuously for, tended that the article of the judiciary authorizes the creation of and in explicitly *4 court Were applicant was convicted. for the amount of thought and research holding this court ad- displayed by decisions not, versely furthermore, above, and were for the importance flow, of the results to with above we would content ourselves statement. The and since Constitution of this both before amendment creation of authorizes courts. Section 1 follows: article 5 of the Constitution provides “The shall be vested one power Supreme this State Court, in courts of civil in dis- in courts of criminal appeals, appeals, courts, courts, trict courts, in courts county commissioners of the justices and in peace, may provided such other courts as law. The Harris cоunties Criminal District and Court of Galveston now district, shall organization continue jurisdiction until Legislature may law existing by otherwise law. provided by establish such and prescribe other courts as deem necessary, thereof, jurisdiction juris- conform organization inferior diction of the district and other courts thereto.” clause of the Constitution is broad enough to authorize the Legislature create court correlative with the district and inferior any said court, jurisdiction concurrent give provided Legislature conform district and other jurisdiction inferior courts shall Court, creates Supreme thereto. Constitution one civil district courts, of criminal appeals, appeals, county 1900.] Ex Parte Hart. courts, and
commissioners courts of justices author peace, izes the continued existence of Criminal District Court of Gal veston and counties. Harris is impossible to conceive how Legislature could create court conform its jurisdiction to the “district and other inferior courts” unless said created had a court or was vested part, with a part, the district other inferior courts. under the Acting the above quoted article of the Legislature, an act passed at establishing of Dallas criminal city district court, which shall have and exercise all the criminal now vested in and exercised the district courts of Dallas County. By this act said created, court was and various been tried parties said court, and some condemned to death; and court has uniformly affirmed the verdict and law, judgment, authorized where under the and in no instance has the jurisdiction of said court ever been con troverted; nor has it ever been contended that did not authorize the creation of such a court. Constitution au thorized the creation of a court under the jurisdiction of which one can be tried hanged, has the under certainly power the Constitution to create a court with for dis to fine parties conduct. orderly The same of the Constitution provision under the Criminal District Court of Dallas was created one is the under which the corporation courts created. the State were throughout This construction of the Constitution is controverted in Leach v. State, 36 Texas Criminal Ginnochio, Ex Parte Reports, Texas and Ex Appeals, 590, Coombs, Criminal Re 654, and ports, seem be they based 18 of part upon of the Constitution, in each justice “there provides prеcinct * * * shall elected constable, 0ne and one peace each of whom shall hold office two his and '.until years, his succes- sor shall be elected and qualified; any precinct which there abe of 8000 more inhabitants shall be two justices elected the contention in the de- peace;” above cisions being provision justices limits nine, at utmost, and that peace county, *5 jurisdiction having peace concurrent with the of the over crimi- justice nal unconstitutional, matters is because violation of section that can not be done which not In can be done indirectly directly. the first do not think we there is conflict between sections place, 1 and since there is as much difference court between a corporation authorized the as by Twenty-sixth Legislature and a court justice court as there between a contemplated by justice a The court. court concurrent corporation has the county simply of the criminal jurisdiction justice the over peace matters territorial city, offenses within the limits of and also jurisdic- the has tion affairs out the arising enforcement of court city. justice jurisdiction ordinances has of criminal 43st Criminal' of all offenses county matters coextensive with the limits of the has jurisdiction, jurisdiction court corporation and, addition, jurisdiction city; confined to the limits to matters; and also forcible jurisdiction entry civil try try to say It would strained construction to cases. therefore be a detainer court under the article that the created question against that section 18 is an inhibition а court. Concede justice courts, still creation we justice creation of other that court, is in strict another but courts is author- line and with the provisions consonance create such other courts be provided as izing Legislature jurisdiction of said courts to by law, and adjust However, a courts. if be of the district and other inferior conflict two sections Constitution above quoted, between the be construction, a must then, rule of the instrument well known such a will if both given provisions construction as uphold, possible, construc- is, be Constitution; given that the instrument must that “such tion will that the creation of uphold provision authorizing nine courts,” other and also creation that authorizing done? 18. Can justice courts as this be contemplated by on Constitutional Cooley, think so. in his work We conflict in two Limitations, in passing upon apparent Constitution, “If seem uses this different language: portions lean, conflict, them, harmonize if courts must and must practicable, favor a construction which render word every operative, would make idle nugatory. rather than one which would some words constitutions, in rule force to written is applicable special will to have presumed which the expressed themselves terms, careful measured with the immense corresponding import- delegated, ance of the as as powers leaving possible implica- little conceivable that arise where court scarcely tion. a case can written constitution justified declaring any portion would be of a as of ambiguity. because One another so may qualify nugatory part than the natural con- otherwise operation, restrict itself; if but one require part would it stood struction another, two to defeat if reasonable construction the allowed Lim., Cool. Const. together.” can be made to stand Applying us, find rational of construction before question we the Constitution of 1876 provided That following: courts” as law. shall “such other be provided create Legislature provides, amended only law, other courts bemay create Legislature further, shall goes says adjust juris- district other of such courts diction “It conceivable a case can arise where courts. scarcely inferior a written con- declaring any portion would- justified There is ambiguity.” because nugatory ambiguity stitution *6 Ex Hart. 1900-1 nuga- to
here, and amended Constitution to he hold this provision construction of a Constitu- would not the provision he tory tion, but of one of the clauses of Constitu- abrogation would be of con- It is a well known rule tion without at all. also construction in their that have been used employed stitutional construction the words “The of the Constitution natural and framers ordinary meaning. words employed who must understood have it to people adopt but sense, they and to intended what said. This natural their construction is be put that no forced unnatural saying to* that one expects their and it seems obvious truism language, so without question; see universally accepted attempt to induce often refinement ingenious so interested subtlety their meaning courts to from these which force instruments a to redeclare never held that becomes necessary framers frequently 73. Lim., this maxim.” Cool. Const. p. fundamental it author- But insisted wherein that earnestly ordi- to what izes the creation of other had are solely reference denominated “State courts.” An answer to this propo- effective narily Construction, is contained in on Sutherland Statutory sition 380, to wit: “As are vested with a municipal corporations portion properly appertains sovereign power be confined those must are they powers can as it such granted, only by grants government proper cite- authority.” think it delegate just We do necessary but deem that hare statement question, However, receive Judge Cooley, should universal assent. proposition matter, system our speaking discussing American is, decentralization of wherein States awarded part power,—that their Federal respective government, sovereign powers the States turn awarded their subdivisions- respective State,—uses is, “It to* this desire language: [that States, the several if power] impels decentralize as common counties, road, towns, to subdivide their into arrangement, territory districts, the* and to confer of local legislation and school powers subdivision, cities, boroughs, each also incorporate wherever circumstances needs dense villages popula- other than those which needful tion seem to are regulations require almost is one which a part districts. seems system for the rural A sub- to which we similar belong. nature race very government division of realm the purposes first from earliest in America existed England ages; settlers, instinctively, if it in their frame of adopted government, other found Cool. it, and no has ever or even advocates.” supplanted Yet, Lim., is it not remarkable face of Const. authors, learned court would from such statements “of such other the Constitution which authorizes creation to the organiza- law” not have reference he should *7 .588 41st Texas of
tion courts, on 'not municipal the Constitution did the theory n contemplate or take into in- consideration that were municipalities of tegral the State? A parts only citizen of the Dallas is not of :a citizen of of County, Dallas also a citizen of the State great and 'Texas; to that the Constitution contem- of this State never that the plated Legislature should create little court a city Coombs, construction to which we can In Ex Parte possibly agree. statеment, Texas Criminal we find this Reports, remarkable to wit: “Then it asserted that the jurisdiction conferred upon courts as municipal of its judicial part finds power right existence such in Constitu- express provisions 1845, 1861, tions of 1866; and that and or right was, by power omission, abolished the Constitution of 1869, and has never been incorporated into the judicial time, system since that omitted being from the Constitutions of 1869 and 1876; and in 1891 such corpora- tion courts ceased to exist aas part judicial said and power, omission indicates change entire regard this State policy to the attitude of courts. omission corporation of corporation courts in re-enactment with of the Constitution reference the judicial and power State repeals cease to they exist as a and Texas.” part judicial parcel power ask, Then we true, in all seriousness, if what would this be have been condition political in Texas if the Constitution existing present n contained words, no express authority to court? in other or, create any if the present contained no whatever. article then, remarkable statement true, event, were the Legisla- ture would have no to create right other any kind of courts. Under our form of government, State Constitu- limitations, tion an instrument the Federal Constitution an instrument of tois can delegations; say, the State n do Constitutions, anything the Federal or State prohibited by can not Congress do authorized anything delegated Then, if wit, the Federal power, Constitution. Consti- present whatever, tution contained no judiciary people, their have right inherent never power,—which they surrendered to one,—could create and all character courts not prohibited by Federal Constitution. we Upon subject find the following .statement of the above laid down in Sutherland Con- Statutory 4: struction, legislative “The whole delegated power in Congress, Federal is vested government exceptions as in the instance making treaties. Congress States, enumerated powers. residue is retained only by is vested their .and Constitutions in their respective Legislatures, subject restrictions limitations the Federal Constitution and In creating that of the State. a legislative particular department n it the government, conferring upon legislative power, must understood have conferred the full complete Ex Parte Hart. 1900.] in and exercised sovereign power it rests
power have seen such restrictions as they may subject only any country, Con- are contained the limitations which tofit impose, United that provisions States.” The fact stitution contained express authorizing Legis- Constitutions con- present lature create *8 omission whatever that argument is no tains such provision repeal in Constitution is a present authority express Constitu- heretofore existing implication not of, and legal independent entity tions. Each Constitution is be some might Constitution. There any previous dependent upon, case, rule Coombs if the supra, in the statement in the plausibility to amendments of provisions construction invoked was being applied construction, not a rule of the Constitution. But this is Consti- that new independent nature can be things, applied to does exclusio alterius” tution. doctrine of unius est “expressio some have not to- State Constitutions. doctrine may While the Federal at to the variance application directly Constitutions, of State are the- theory upon limitations and under which whatever not denied powers government, power deemed illustration, exist. “To but a give single where instances to. might multiplied indefinitely: Where a Constitution authorized and directed the provide by law for establishment- ‘the of schools such manner through that the poor may taught gratis/ it was that held thé provision did upon (as, unius, etc., in expressio principle misconceived sense, undoubt- a limitation edly imply upon the would) the Legislature to- power establish a common-schoolsystem, free to rich as well as the poor.”' Stats., Endl. 752. Interp. p. Certainly, say, stated, as above because previous Ccnstitutions eo creation nomine authorized courts, and that the present Constitution au- does so same, thorize ais repeal by implication, is a we can proposition that not, in very nature of to; assent but believe it things, at- variance with every and constitutional construction. statutory
It has been- insisted the provision perhaps bill, deprives fee county attorney repre the State in senting court, was unconstitutional. The writer However, this does opinion contention. agree' is a. matter that does not come within the of this de legitimately scope cision, but I am of clearly opinion following uphold Texas, provision' Moore, question: State v. State v. Hanscom Civ. S. W. 453. there (Texas We App.), Rep., fore .hоld that the act within courts is of the State Constitution. scope purview Harris Stewart, Ex Wilbarger (just decided), Parte ante* 514. affirmed. in all p. judgment things
Affirmed. alias¡, Texas 41st \D Judge. reached, and, HENDERSON, I agree the conclusion to my refer opinion views on the question, an expression my ante, term, 514. at the p. decided Wilbarger, present Ex 1900.) (March 14, Judge Presiding absence DAVIDSON, (Dissenting).—During my failure rendered. This for my case was accounts decision of this conclusion agreed then dissent. note my Henderson in Ex Parte Wil- xeached, late opinion for his referred to his views at understand ante, I am somewhat a loss to barger, issue, as stated at regard question brethren my attitude of Had themselves. But their views explain their diverging opinions. his opinion himself with simply basing Brother contented states the judicial 1 of article 5 which exprеssion named “and vested in certain State shall be ;such law,” I could have remained other courts bemay .silent, fully expressed views been question as my *9 Coombs, Criminal Leach v. Reports, Parte Ex 248; Ex Knox Criminal (Texas Reports, 36 Texas issue main at 670. The question 39 Southwestern Reporter, Appeals), cases, dis- in and was thoroughly as those was the same this case case, well Coombs as myself cussed Judge Henderson v. Court, Harris Brown, County for the Supreme Judge .as by this “The Judge language: uses Stewart, 91 have contained Constitutions previous that provisions fact or Legislature to create municipal authorizing power express contains no such and the present provision, (cid:127)corporation omission of such express authority whatever argument hereto- authority is a implication reрeal by Constitution present state- This is a correct Constitutions.” in previous fore existing Constitutions did not undertake These ment of the proposition. courts. They to create corporation to the Legislature authority grant as were of such courts the existence recognized simply the judiciary independent the Legislature, be created by might and decided main discussed questions This was one .article. 1845, in As, for the-^Constitution example, cases in all the supra. “The 4): follows article (section reads as this respect, Court, in district in one Supreme shall be vested this power time from Legislature inferior courts as .courts, and such vested in establish, jurisdiction may and such time ordain directed law.” deemed necessary (cid:127)corporation did not this on the surface will he observed it courts, hut simply to create corporation Legislature .authorize such certain upon confer Legislature authorized recognized by of which is directly existence courts, the (cid:127)corporation not depended in Texas have Corporation article quoted. in the Constitu- judiciary or existence their creation mo.~\ Ex Parte Hart. This
tion. action of ordaining 1845 simply legislative authorized the to confer jurisdiction upon body had created Legislature courts as the either already create; thereafter cor- might recognize does fact that the poration courts were then that it existing did not require of the Constitution to justify them. It was intended to authorize the simply Legislature to confer more, them; nothing less. For a discussion nothing I refer to the decisions rendered cited question, above. remarkable statement is found the opinion This.further of, “Each legal entity, Constitution is a independent Brooks: and not might Constitution. There dependent upon, case, if some Coombs the statement plausibility supra, rule of construction invoked to amendments of was being applied pro- visions of the Constitution. But not a rule of construction this is in the nature of that can to a new or things be applied independent Constitution. The alterius’ doctrine of unius est exclusio ‘expressio does not State Constitutions. While doctrine may application some to the Federal at variance directly with the of State theory Constitutions, which limitations upon are powers government, under which denied is not whatever is deemed exist.” While is true each Constitution bemay regarded a legal entity, when this yet, statement of Judge Brooks, in its as above entirety, to, the quoted, is looked is evolved proposition can not look to you Constitutions in prior order to construe a or new Constitution. subsequent I doubt if such a rule can be found outside the opinion case. majority matter re- case, viewed in the Coombs Our supra. Supreme Court has recognized in all its decisions where the question came for adjudica- up tion. In Travis Texas, 302, Trogdon, in an elaborate *10 opinion, Judge Denman reviewed the 1845, 1836, Constitutions of 1866, 1869, in order to ascertain what was meant a change that section of the Bill of Bights which to relates of taking to property be use, applied public and it was a review only upon all of provisions these Constitutions that he was enabled to arrive at what he and the court a deemed conclusion just of the mean- of section ing as amended of 1876. All the writers elementary lay that, down the proposition when necessary do so in Constitution, an construing it existing is proper look Constitutions. prior This is when true especially the intention of is to people at in arrived making changes their law. organic This doctrine recognized expressly Court Supreme Texas, Bigby 44 City Tyler, 351; Texas, Holmes v. 44 631; McAllister, State v. 88 284. enactments, Applied statutory is well settled rule so can not be questioned; and the authorities, as well as the elementary decisions, down lay the proposi- tion that general rules interpretation are the same whether 41st Texas Criminal {Dallas, to statutes Constitutions. authorities collated in or See
applied Potter, Stats., Const. case, 654, Dwar. Cool. 657; Coomhs supra; pp. Const., Lim., 509, Am. Enc. and Eng. et Endl. Stat. seq.; Law, ed., 930, notes, cases. How, statement that "the Judge to the reference doctrine unius est exelusio alterius’ does not of ‘expressio an Constitutions,” I have not- been able to find statement, it. nor he one in He support sustains does cite 752, Statutes, relies Endlich on Interpretation only upon page cited language: latter clause The section uses this maxim, alterius,’ "The est exelusio in the sense unius ‘Expressio construction which, seen, as has been to the properly applicable is of constitutional is so statutes, pro- equally interpretation * * * however, late chief said, visions. It was aby of one in the Constitution Pennsylvania: expression thing ‘The I regard exclusion of necessarily things expressed. nature. their true of constitutional declaratory especially "that, Bacon force exceptions strengthen remark Lord enumerated,” law, enumeration weakens as general so things of common law to the Constitution.’ applicable expresses principle defines under doubt, the circumstances Ho ‘when the exercised or a right penalty imposed, specification an interference to add against legislative implied prohibition But condition, to extend the to other cases.’ this proceeds penalty conditions that, and the right given, where a principle one, an inferior a superior power, of its exercise are prescribed, it, can not under in accordance with charged vary with acting conditions,—a alike whether obviously to those principle applicable add - themselves and governing superior power be the Legislature or whether the superior power this, statute.’.’ In the work quoted rule a support the governing Stats., authorities. Endl. on sec. Interp. from cites many collated in notes section. See also section under Brooks fail to only authorities cited by support et seq. him, unequivocally against proposition. but are emphatically Statutes; Dwarris on where page To the same effect is Potter’s or-dis- maxims rules of adopted "Certain is said: construction are of consideration deserving chapter, by Judge Story cussed instrument which are ‘that a specification particulars among words, or, in other of one expression exclusion of ‘the generals;’ another.’ And Lord Bacon’s remark is the exclusion of cited thing *11 ‘that, force of a viz., as exception approbation, strengthens with it in cases not not enumeration weakens so excepted, law cases ” 448, Constitutions, In on Story enumerated.’ language deserves consideration interpretation is- found: "Another rule of which have There are certain maxims to the Constitution. regard into but into discussions, found the business their-way only 1900.] (cid:127) 593 Ex Paste Hart. of common life, as founded in and common convenience. common sense Thus it is often said that in an instrument a specification particu- is an lars exclusion of or of one generals, expression thing exclusion of another.” This same author cites approval Bacon, famous remark of Lord which is copied text by author. To 1 Texas the same effect is Long Appeals, 709, in which issue. Under was at the Constitution of question 1869 had criminal to create district and, Marlin, other did create for the among things, one cities of Waco, Calvert. Whether or not this court existed under the Constitution 1876 issue. was the Section 5 of the Constitution of among other “that provided, things, the Legislature may estab- lish criminal district courts with such as it prescribe, but court shall established unless the district con- includes city 30,000 inhabitants, at least as taining ascertained the census of the States, United or other official census: such town shall support such criminal district court established, when out excepting the criminal provision district court for Gal- the counties of veston and Harris.” The court held that reason of this language in the Constitution of 1876 the Waco, criminal district court of Mar- lin, and Calvert obliterated, had been maxim, placed unius est exelusio “Expressio alterius.” This doctrine is expressly recognized, I so far as have been ascertain, able to all the only courts known to Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, all on writers constitutional law which I have been find. able to See also Black Law, Const. 282, page sec. 127. All the also down the lay proposition the court look only Constitutions prior and their history, but may go beyond, look to the show- journals ing proceedings the conventions which framed the Constitu- tions, to ascertain the intent meaning of those who framed the instrument. Lim., Cool. Const. Stats., et Potter’s Dwar. on p. seq.; 657, 660; pp. Stats., Endl. Interp. sees. Am. and Enc. Eng. Law, ed., notes, cases. cited states the rule of unius est “expressio exelusio alterius” аpplies amendments of Constitutions, but denies the rule to a applicable or new Constitution. succeeding applies an amendment Constitution, of a with equal would certainly force to new for the amendment takes place as thoroughly of the Constitution which has been amended portion In re- old. as new Constitution could place take in sec- of Statutes uses this language on Interpretation Endlich spect which have expired work: “Statutory provisions tion 517 of his con- seen, has been be looked .at aiding may, been-repealed materia. Simi- and enactments pari struction of other provisions from amend- eliminated a Constitution larly, have been clauses originally to in of others interpretation referred aid ment bemay Rep.—38 41st Grim. *12 ‘ Texas 41st in force. And еqual pro with them and remaining
associated of a new Constitution between the differences priety one, and the construction placed upon aof and those ascertaining force, regarded by latter when In new provisions.” support real meaning the purpose St., Commonwealth, 100 Houseman Pa. cites v. the author this text Blodgett, v. Const., 46; Pa., People 222, 230; pp. Buckelew’s Stats., So, sec. 397. Mich., Endl. on Interp. 147. See also Procedure, page Annotated Criminal said, it is as found White’s that, when Constitu of construction 30: “Another rule exercised, or under which right the circumstances tion defines against an implied prohibition penalty imposed, specification condition, or to extend interference add to the legislative Crim. Texas App., to other cases. Holley penаlty made So, the statement Brown, Ex Crim. 295. if Rep., true, of Constitutions Judge as to amendments sus is fully supporting proposition proposition to a new Constitution tained—cogently supported—that applies Constitutions, How could to amendment to entirety. understand, not to new I do for the rules must other. govern one to the necessarily apply hurriedly I stated some of for my have thus reasons crudely It would from the rendered dissenting opinion Brooks. if condition have afforded me crowded of the docket pleasure, would have more into these time, thoroughly gone permit matters. Grogan
J. T. v. The State. No. 1951. Decided March Filed—Diligence. 1. Statement Facts allowing days was no Where there order ten within file a statement adjournment purported term, of facts after days and the four statemеnt was filed adjournment, proper diligence shown, after the unsworn state- judge explanation trial ment of the matter can not be considered. Exceptions. 2. Same—Bill of exception In order to entitle a and bills of filed in term statement facts appeal, appear considered time on must be oefore the time elapsed filing appellant, through counsel, judge same went and de- approval papers might time, in order that he file manded the of said them having judge papers judge refused them to called on the for the deliver him, approve distinctly promised file the same within the time au- thorized law. Exceptions—Practice on 3. Absence of Statement of Facts and Bills of Appeal. appeal Assignments appellant of error can exception. be reviewed on relied absence a statement of facts bills