39 Tex. 564 | Tex. | 1873
Lead Opinion
The question involved in this case as to the right of a party who has appealed his case to the District Court from a justice’s docket to take a second appeal to this court, has been frequently decided, under the 12th Section of the justices act of August 13, 1870.
The Constitution undoubtedly makes this an appellate Court, but it is also provided that the District Court is an
We do not think it was the intention of the framers of the - Constitution that the time of this 'court should betaken up with petty appeals from justices’ dockets, in civil cases. In criminal cases the Constitution itself puts a limit upon the right of appeal to this court, and cuts off the appeal, except where error is found by one of the judges.
Certainly, if the convention felt authorized to lay a strong hand upon this right in criminal cases where life and liberty are involved, it is to be expected, knowing the amount of business which would necessarily come before-this court of so much graver import, that a restriction would be put upon appeals in civil cases, where but a small sum of money is usually involved..
This case is upon an information filed against Stubbsfor not paying the occupation tax of a merchant. The case-was appealed to the Criminal District Court of Galveston county, as is alleged, by mistake, it being the intention of the appellant to take his appeal to the District Court.
The appeal was certified by the Criminal Court to the-District Court, and, on motion of the district attorney in that court, was dismissed, and we think properly. This was a criminal case, and the criminal court alone has cognizance of appeals in criminal cases, in the county of Galveston. The motion to dismiss the appeal to this court is sustained, and the appeal dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Rehearing
on rehearing.—This case is now before ns on a rehearing, it having been dismissed for the-want of jurisdiction in this court. It appears that this case originated in a justice’s court for Galveston county, on a criminal information, and was appealed to the District Court for that county, and the appeal was, upon motion, dismissed, upon the supposition that the District Court of Galveston county had no jurisdiction of criminal cases.
The second clause of Section 1, Article 5, of the Constitution provides that “The Legislature may establish criminal courts in the principal cities within the Stater with such criminal jurisdiction, coextensive with the limits of the county wherein such city may be situated, and under such regulations as may be prescribed by law.’’"
This clause confers upon the Legislature unlimited; power to prescribe by law the character and extent of the-jurisdiction of the criminal court, while Section 1 of the-act of 1870, creating the criminal court for the counties of Galveston and Harris, passed by authority of the Constitution, declares, “That there is hereby created a court of original and exclusive criminal jurisdiction in all cases of felony and misdemeanor for said counties of Galveston and Harris.” We are of the opinion that this act was intended to and did relieve the District Courts of those counties of all jurisdiction of criminal cases, and that the Constitution fully authorized the act. It follows that the District Court of Galveston county has no jurisdiction in criminal cases, and that the court did not err in< dismissing the case from the docket.
There are other interesting questions presented in the brief of counsel for appellant worthy of grave consideration, one of which is in relation to the constitutionality of the law providing that appeals from a justice’s to the-
The action of the District Court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
