40 S.W. 982 | Tex. Crim. App. | 1897
Appellant was convicted of betting on the result of a general election, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $25, and he prosecutes this appeal.
Appellant contends that the court erred in not sustaining his motion to the jurisdiction of the County Court. The grounds of his motion were as follows: That there was an indictment in this case found and presented in the District Court of Uvalde County, and that the same was transferred from said District Court to the County Court of Uvalde County, the orders of transfers and presentment being as follows: "At a term of the District Court begun and holden within and for the county of Uvalde, at Uvalde, on the 18th day of January, A.D. 1897, and which adjourned on the 3d day of February, A.D. 1897, the Hon. W.W. Martin, Special Judge thereof, presiding, the following proceedings were had in the cause of The State of Texas v. L. Schwartz, to wit: January 26th, A.D. 1897. This day came into open court, in a body, the grand *28 jury, a quorum being thereof present, and, through their foreman, delivered to the judge of this court the following indictment, to wit: 'The State of Texas v. L. Schwartz. File No. 1183,' which was thereupon ordered by the court to be filed." Order of transfer: "January 27th, A.D. 1897. The State of Texas v. L. Schwartz. No. 1183. It appearing to the court from an inspection of the indictment that this court has not jurisdiction in this case, the same being a misdemeanor, and that the County Court of Uvalde County, Texas, has jurisdiction of the same, it is ordered that the said case be, and the same is, transferred to said County Court of said county. The following costs have accrued in this cause in the District Court of Uvalde County, Texas, to wit: Bill of costs in District Court, $2.80."
The motion is predicated on the idea that the transcript fails to show by what authority W.W. Martin, who appears to have presided in said District Court, was made special judge, whether by agreement, election by the bar, or appointment by the Governor, and fails to show that any record of such appointment or election was made to evidence the authority by which said Martin, as special judge, transferred said case to the County Court. To support this contention, appellant refers us to the following authorities: Brinkley v. Harkins,
Appellant also contends that the record shows that only one witness testified against the appellant; and that he was the stakeholder — that is, that he held the money bet by the parties, and turned the same over to the winner; and that that fact constituted him an accomplice under the statute; and that a conviction can not be maintained upon his testimony alone. An accomplice has been defined to be "a person who, either as a principal, accomplice, or accessory, is connected with a crime by unlawful act or omission on his part, transpiring either before, at the time of, or after the commission of the offense, and whether or not he was present and participated in the crime." This being a misdemeanor, technically speaking, there are no accomplices; all persons participating in the crime would be principals. Now, was the stakeholder a principal in the offense of betting on the election? He had no interest whatever in the bet, and did not participate therein. His holding the stake money bet by the parties, in our opinion, did not constitute him a principal in the offense, so as to make him an accomplice as far as his testimony would be concerned. There being no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
[NOTE. — Appellant's motion for rehearing was overruled without a written opinion. — Reporter.]