*1 y. Taylok The State. 1917.1 money if sufficient to commit perjury and induced be easily approached of Marshall. innocence the did not show but that put up, the writer does purpose involved here which Another proposition for re- The motion make mere allusion. than to to discuss further the State in holding the wrong court was contends hearing as evidence Marshall’s truthfulness of the be required prove would that it was indictment, holding in error and was also in the alleged These matters false. that the entire affidavit was prove to so allege, solido, seen and the State having proper were alleged Enough to so prove. incumbent prosecution became opinion. matter said, think, with reference to this we specific- be The indictment alleged One other will noticed. question to change Marshall amount of offered the witness ally money particular ¿online the charge did not his and swear The-court falsely. believe to this instructed the should allegation, they perjury induce Marshall to commit appellant “by means” any sought to charge That not the elected law. guilty. Having affidavit, State means to the false induce specifically attempted would be bound could not submit by such court allegation. of conviction on other consideration. theory correct, rehearing the motion for Believing original opinion the State is overruled.
Overruled. PBENDEBGAST, Judge, dissenting. Taylor v.
E. B. State. May 4365. Decided
No. Exception *1.—Murder—Bill of Waiver—Change of Venue. Limine — Where, murder, upon trial of was transferred from Travis County, Williamson from whence changed motion own County, judicial venue Bexar which was not in the district or one, defendant, conviction, and t'he invalidity after raised transferring of the order cepting Judge, dissenting. County, case from Williamson to Bexar not ex- Davidson, thereto in limine. Held order Presiding that the was valid. —Same—Jurisdiction—Change Felony—Subject Matter. Venue — The contention Court Bexar District tried, case was after venue from Travis to Wil- which this liamson thence competent not a of of ’ that-any judgment might acquitting render either or con- void, victing- untenable, defendant would be felonies, matter; subject objection and therefore of the no besides there was Dissenting. Davidson, Presiding limine. Judge, Change 3.—Same—Constitutional of Venue —Venue Criminal Law — Cases. fixing There is provision Constitution of this State provision cases, criminal States United Reports. [May, Criminal prosecution concerning control of offenses the laws venue does not App., 254. Following Cox v. State. Law. 4. —Same—Jurisdiction—Venue—Distinction—Constitutional *2 subject jurisdiction Generally speaking, there is distinction between of the juris- By the Constitution the Court matter and venue. District has power change the grade felony, criminal cases of the of while diction in the courts, and criminal is vested the in civil cases venue the iq provided to be exercised such manner as law. shall be Exception. —Same—Change Judge 5. of Venue —District of —Bill Procedure, power, district article Code Criminal the has Under motion, any county ill change on his own the venue criminal case of a Procedure, district, adjoining or an Code his own Criminal and article appeal upon order provides upon that such shall not be revised facts unless the n which presented proper exceptions of at the term are bill the was based same made, apply the court at such this must in the which order was and rule Davidson, Presiding dissenting. Judge, instant case. Change 6. —Same—Limitation—Power Venue. upon power to 626, supra, the limitation that article The contention Constitu of the State given the venue tion, attempt although power t'he exercise is void at the of such done objection Distinguishing parties without the well Grooms v. not taken. State, Davidson, dissenting. Rep., Presiding Judge, 40 Texas 327. Crim. —Same—Change Jurisdiction—Eelony—Case Stated. Venue — felony, having The Constitution fixed venue for trial of the courts, specifically expressly vested the the felonies, all declaring that courts 'having Court of transferred to County District Williamson causé ordered this county, adjoining District Court of Bexar in an which was not etc., objection appellant having made no to the transfer either it, Bexar the trial of District Court of cause Davidson, Presiding Judge, dis- the defendant. to render senting. —Same—Charge Manslaughter—Self-defense—Threats. of Court — Where, murder, manslaughter. upon trial of evidence raised the issues threats, self-defense, standpoint reversible as well as viewed from t’he Judge, dissenting. requested. charge Prendergast, thereon as not to error 9. —Same—Evidence—Reconciliation—Rebuttal. (cid:127) murder, Where, upon there was of trouble between trial of evidence wife, conduct of deceased towards defendant’s with reference to the parties place taken between defendant and deceased had partial reconciliation and that a introduce thereafter, permit defendant to was reversible error reconciliation, its some showing cessation reasons for this dissenting. Prendergast, Judge, before homicide. time —Same—Evidence—Plat—Physical in District Courts. Pacts —Practice murder, showing the scene and Where, upon trial of introduced plat plat should be suggested is advisable that killing, it is that it location produced than that and conditions physical facts the exact accord with more trial. of Deceased —Rule Stated. 11. —Same—Evidence—Clothes clothing they be admitted is in The rule murder trials facts', question to to disputed and as there was purposes useful some serve deceased, prepared court is not location wounds deceased was error. the admission of the clothes of say Taylob y. 349 2927.] The State. Appeal from the District Court of Bexar. Tried below before Hon. W. S. Anderson. murder; from a five
Appeal years imprison- conviction penalty, ment in the penitentiary. states the opinion case. Bickett, Graves, Patterson, Ward & Hart Wilcox & & A. S.
Fisher, Jr., appellant. contending On that Bexar in the district of Travis or Williamson being Trayis or an district to the district judicial embraced, Williamson are not attach Wadrows, Texas, 65; Williams, 8 County: v. Rogers Taylor v. id., 586; id., 590; Burton, id., 26 Wilson v. 41 Dodson Catchings, v. 81 565; Colsom, 635; State, Holmes v. 178 S. W. Texas Rep., Holly id., 42; Frizzell v. Ex Brown, Crim. parte id., 60; Ex Massey, parte Snodgrass *3 State, 178; State, 150 W. Coffman 73 S. v. Texas Rep., Crim. Rep., 295, 165 S. W. 939. Rep., self-defense,
On of court’s failure to on based on question charge State, 6 190; v. S. W. Miles Rep., State, threats: v. 18 Texas Lynch 156; State, 102; v. 48 Texas Swain Crim. App., Rep., Crim. Graves v. id., State, Duke State, 44; 432; 58 v. 133 S. W. Robinson v. Rep., State, 561, 71 Texas Crim. 160 W. 456; S. Christian v. Rep., Rep., State, 566, 161 State, 103; 71 Texas S. W. v. Rep., Rep., Crim. Harper 124, 723; State, 75 170 S. W. Williams v. Rep., Rep., Texas Crim. 437, 148 W. 772. 65 Texas S. Rep., Rep., Crim. failure on charge manslaughter: of court’s to v. Yandy
On question State, id., v. 48 172; 99; Swain Branch’s State, 48 Texas Rep., Crim. 322, 504. Law, see. Crim. p. of deceased: State, introduction of clothes v. Gillespie
On question 147. W. Rep., 190 S. Hendricks, General, for the Attorney Assistant State. On B. ques- E. State, v. of clothes of deceased: 13 Texas King introduction
tion of State, 74 Texas 179, v. Crim. 167 280; Rep., Johnson Crim. App., Rep., W. S. refusal to self-defense threats: charge of court’s On question Crim. State, App., 9 Texas v. Simms State, Preston 4 venue: v. of change On question 529; State, id., id., Rothschild v. 7 State, 6 v. 191; Brown Cox, id., 12 Bohannon v. State, id., 24; Ex parte 8 Krabs v. State, State, id., 153; 24 Sherman v. v. id., 271; Woodson State, 14 208, Crim. 144 S. W. State, 65 Texas Rep., v. 347; Treadway id., 27 Rep., 155 S. Texas W. State, Rep., ; Mayhew Rep., 73 Texas Crim. 191; Coffman Judge. Presiding of the verdict awarded DAVIDSON, for murder. in the penitentiary confinement five years appellant Reports. (cid:127) [May, 81 Criminal thence to The case transferred from Travis Williamson to venue of his own motion on the trial judge in After the conviction1 raised County. to Bexar of the order the case from Williamson transferring validity P., 636, C. transfer order article C. This was based of the Con the Constitution. the terms By and article court to change is vested supra stitution under the article manner in such and criminal cases be exercised only civil for that law, shall laws .by Legislature pass as shall be provided of the Constitution Legis mandate In obedience purpose. is granted In this article supra. authority lature enacted article their own motion cases to venue of district judges express The statute is an district. adjoining in his own or county ato county it as above stated and confines its limitation this power, district. There in his own district or to some on change of cases transfer are other statutes making provisions here are noticed. unnecessary do not apply but they seen that it is not self- Constitution it will be By provisions for the Legislature pass therefore became executing, into carry rules of and provide necessary procedure suitable laws of the granted of the Constitution. Outside effect such provisions has not been clothed with authority own motion. Outside of the venue of his provi authority orders, His can not so act. decrees of that article sions but would be ultra vires void. not be authorized judgments for such changes exclusive provide The Legislature followed, consequently necessarily and the procedure of venue within the must coniine their action given that the courts pro follows limitations. be well here enough to state and prescribed cedure *4 forth the exercise may limitation set courts proper legal the that within the of ends within terms the power granted. discretion discretion but must be and arbitrary never and not to legal judicial is Discretion within of but bounds. This always outside statute legal exercised of action and boundaries discre authority judicial the constitutes act, a has no there right terms is to its tion. Beyond outside of no discretion of the statute. provisions him confided 31; Holland, Texas, 626, 56 Bizzle, Texas, 3 Watts art. Hipp Ala., 3, Constitution; Chase, 45 Ex 43 P.; parte art. sec. C. C. Phrases, Wheaton, 66; Mo., 263, 278; 303-310; at 3 Words & p. 797, 2096, 2097, 2098; 25 E. Rep., S. pp. act ceases. Discretion to act ends authority power Where and, must be state of case within the controlling grant,
under a given therefore, It can never rise authority. legislative subordinate That of to nor subordinate legislative grant power. power superior discretion, not if it could be is test. If this be true supreme termed, It would upon granted authority. so would depend Constitution, operate superior legislation' Taylob v. The State. 1917.1 an assumption of original To hold power. so would be destructive of governmental authority authority would make such assumption a justification for the destruction of Our sovereignty. provides 1, 10, section This for a trial an by impartial jury. is held so sacred that it 10, can not be waived. Article Con stitution. Article section 29 of the Constitution provides expressly that all laws in contravention of Bill null and shall be Bights void. A change of is a to the fair trial guarantee accused impartial This jury. if not the main under practically basis both the lying Constitution and for Ran legislation venue. change dall v. see also the statutes. This is not a of venue but one entirely to a relating of venue. change Its whole basis is bottomed theory where venue is there exist a for venue. changing reason Constitution was ordained and the statute enacted to from get away the influences and the reasons operating against fair trial venue. If venue and of venue mean the change same thing, the statute which for a provides of venue change would be practically useless. There can not exist a possibility venue until there changing has been venue fixed in some appropriate from case is to be sought transferred. Yenue is to the exercise of judicial The term authority. of venue implies necessarily the venue has been fixed in some jurisdiction. So it previously ought seen that clearly the court in Bexar County did not and could not attach except by under this record reason of the act of the only the provisions of article did supra. not and could not have orig- inal The offense jurisdiction. charged not occur in that county, did not die in and the deceased that county, therefore Bexar County exercise could not obtain or reason of P., venue. C. C. Therefore, 243 and 258. arts. of venue is all there is or that for the claimed exercise of jurisdiction can be court in Bexar it, therefore, becomes a jurisdictional question. There are aas general proposition, three questions, jurisdiction: First, of the second, matter, of the subject and, third, the person; to render does render. particular Without a concur- rence of these there can be legal court to or render a Ex judgment. parte Degener, 30 Texas Crim. App., cases, For collation of 5th vol. Bose Flotes, p. That case in a followed number of great has been cases and is now the settled law decisions but only by authority reason of its inherent correctness. As article has strength defined and deter- *5 court, so that mined authority must authority remain and can be exercised. Within its terms the only act; outside judge may of act, those he cannot terms order outside any of that statute he enter would be may void. the Legislature That could have provided wider latitude power is no their failure or to refusal reply so to do. Repobts. [May, Texas Criminal in this character of case The not jurisdictional. Venue can judge except exercise to case reason try by authority nor venue. Outside of that did not could he exercise acquire juris- He diction. had to look alone to the order not could Williamson for his to act. Venue did County authority County not attach in of Bexar this case act of the by grand an indictment appellant. returning There is some contention that defendant his legal waived rights not the order objection Williamson interposing County here was is not transfer made. discuss question nothing If void was in view what have said. the order was there we venue to to waive. court was without authority Court, authority District and that court was without County Ex render the rendered. parte Degener, order had make the authority If the court Crim. case, bring sug it and could brought nothing nothing transferring defendant, on the and could of waiver part gesting Appel the Bexar District Court. County confer jurisdiction upon is not a and could not failure to to a void order waiver except lant’s While not expressly deciding make that order a valid judgment. raised, have recognized as it was not our courts question, particular as confined discretion within limit of judicial authority own the order is made of his this statute when terms Constitution, see Harris’ Ann. For of cases compilation page motion. found is an the above statement exception If there note State, 40 Texas 327. That case when looked in Grooms is not an exception recognizes of its statements .at in the light That case better stated by quoting stated writer. rule Henderson. The venue of the case used Judge language County. from Atascosa to Travis and agreement consent changed by Travis had to entertain authority juris be noticed It will cases. case a land of land Grooms forgery or venue diction the offense as well jurisdiction Atascosa forgery. Henderson said: opinion Judge from Quoting statute. under titles authorizes land prosecutions forgery “Article is, County, in Travis Travis as well County; also be prosecuted situated, But has original jurisdiction. the land is where that, while the could have prosecution originated here is complaint there was no to transfer the venue County, yet Travis to Travis insisted in this County; being Atascosa from agreement will not confer Inasmuch as jurisdiction. that consent connection jurisdiction, has it occurs to us that it was Travis from Atascosa to Travis transfer competent circumstances, could entertain under no Travis If In that give jurisdiction.” case offense, then consent cf or venue. In this Counties had Atascosa Travis could Bexar County havs jurisdiction circumstances no possible *6 Taylok y. The 1917.] State. it if at all transfer on only could
originally, acquire by line venue. There is a broad drawn Henderson distinguishing by Judge between the There is also another that proposition may two eases. case, in Hen- involved; is, the consented that but Judge that party jurisdiction by derson the idea that would give stating excludes in no event have then con- Travis could original jurisdiction, it. This and that case is well distinguish- sent would confer consent, In this of consent. case there was no theory able this inferred from silence when the order but a waiver is inferred and of venue. The involved is not was made transferring in or except case and is not here point authority discussed really There is reasoning stated. some indulged opinion as above to independent agreement to acted why judge reason opinion only venue which the states supposition. This was agreement only given shown given parties. county the venue one for the action from changing reason judge’s jurisdiction. to authorized exercise county another to the venue record in ease does not show court changed authority I believe that the Grooms case is motion. do not his own from the trial the case transferring support ruling transferred In case was County. to Bexar Williamson own motion. In the Grooms case was transferred of its court I consent, to a that could- county jurisdiction. this matter further. seems that all those care notice do not the venue within the terms and requirements changed cases either to a over presided of article transfer, or to in an adjoining some county making is clothed with to make the authority either event he order. In district. to reserve because the exception case it would be dis- In such In involved. such state transferring judge legally cretion discretion, exercise but this discretion must be judicial he of case law. The order of within the terms of the transfer judicial of the statute conformity provisions was not with Bexar ad- There are several judge. transferring or within situate, in which Williamson districts joining hold, therefore, of those districts. We not in one County is to make the order of his own motion was without Waiver not in the of the statute. case and the provisions to the action of the failing except lost nothing Williamson failure of the court on charge on the man- assigned
Error is viewed of threats. light Briefly, and self-defense slaughter first and deceased were cousins and had been that appellant show facts terms until and were about three very friendly together, years raised homicide, when deceased began systematic attentions to to the prior so that she wife; finally persistent complained became appellant’s Vol. Crim.-23 Reports. [May, Texas Criminal her This trouble at once between them. brought husband. appellant, if he not desist such attentions he told deceased that
Appellant lead, fill him with to that effect. Deceased promised or words more, further visit the home nor to appellant any pay or wife of attention, life of appellant to her. made threats Deceased *7 the trial. absence and These were shown upon his his presence. went to occasion a hotel in the of Austin the deceased City On one him, and had a the room with occupied appellant difficulty crucial, in his hand the time. It became and appellant a knife at himself, a chair to defend and deceased away, remarking went picked up next him. ready he left that time he would Another witness as that deceased made threats the life testified appellant, were not a while before homicide. conveyed appellant great testified time after the about the that some wife Appellant difficulty for a while appellant they again This continued began speaking. when deceased ceased It was after this that deceased made speaking. a threat to the both deceased witness Childress. It is evidence that drank, the day and sometimes to excess. appellant During pre- Austin, the homicide all the were in the ceding City at night parties east some twelve or fifteen miles near the little they living city from that and a called Webberville. friend left- an village Appellant city home, automobile direction of his belonging' he appellant his course here and there to collect from his diverting money patrons; in whose he This families medicine. carried him people practiced distances from main road. About dark he came into varying far from a road to Webberville not store owned leading witness deceased, who In meantime was home near going Web- Littlepage. like stopped seventy-five yards berville a one-horse buggy, something the store. At this appellant car, his reaching' point passed before shown some of the that the car struck the testimony and it is left witnesses heard this and wheel The so testified. buggy. hind he he had said did not know struck the that he saw Appellant buggy; to, it; not know who it no attention to belonged paid it but did deal noise reason of the that his car was fact making great tire, left front tire was on a flat' running that the punctured noise, road caused considerable being graveled thereby pre- at the- him said. hearing anything party venting buggy those in cursed show deceased car as sons-of-a-biteh. Witnesses run over or kill him. differ to the They expression. for trying where there car the store were several passed people but Appellant’s The the car were It was lamps lighted. running not stop. hour, noise or ten miles considerable making slowly, eight about three They on a flat tire. went hundred running yards, reason when discovered the car beyond appellant the store was. matter or such out the fire. In the meantime deceased He stopped put on fire. and was about the he. very store angry way Littlepage’s had reached and said if his he buggy, reference passing treated with had been 1917.] Taylor State.
had a kill he would pistol sons-of-a-bitch in the car. Littlepage others examined and found no it. buggy about Deceased injury also said he could both undertook whip of them. to detain Littlepage leave, deceased at his until the should store auto unsuccessful. auto, Finding direction, that deceased was or in he going asked his son to the car others to perhaps go prevent difficulty. saw, He said was the man he ever and in deceased maddest his con- used, dition and from the he made and he threats was antici- language However, deceased and went on pating got buggy difficulty. to where ensued, the auto was and the killed appellant difficulty him. It was differ the relation and night. at witnesses about situation of at parties time. Some of the shows testimony deceased’s to the of the car and the passed oc- buggy right shooting curred. Some of that deceased was out of the shows at the buggy time the the left occurred was on hand side shooting where when the car moving. Appellant tes- would.sit tified deceased was came and asked with very angry up epi- form, thets and in rather an opprobrious language why aggravated *8 him, ran appellant effect, over that and was or words approaching him He jerked his fired three Deceased rapidly. shots. was pistol on the some of he ran back ground, say witnesses toward the ceased, store or as during his at or near shooting leaving buggy the auto. was Appellant asked State if he saw make deceased threat, demonstration as if to execute his to show thereby seeking that deceased did make a visible demonstration. The answer of he did not appellant was that see that he any, was not that noticing; he did not have time to see what deceased was and that doing, life was in circumstances his thought and he danger, expected deceased to kill him as he had on the said first meeting, this idea was enhanced if deceased was drinking, under such circumstances shot; one them be did that he would to look to see stop anything, in the dark his was except adversary approaching, cursing abusing and form him the manner indicated and as language shown life was in thinking from the testimony, danger circum- stances, he fired. immediately Under this state of the record the court should have given charges upon the law of manslaughter as well as self-defense viewed from the of threats. standpoint
After trouble between with reference parties to the conduct an of deceased wife elder brother appellant’s deceased, towards Baylor Burleson, them, about a reconciliation between brought partial and that some accounted their for time. this for died. speaking Baylor Burleson further then refused The recognize appellant. Deceased court ex- for this of reconciliation reasons it. The testimony cluded pre- failure to them and introduced. The speak vious trouble between was later were for a while and they speaking this State shows this, it was show the proved proper The State ceased. its cessation. The State reconciliation was relying of their reasons Bepobts. {May, Cbimiital on the fact that for a after the they insulting while conduct speak to eliminate a or at least as fact to show that manslaughter, tending all of Hav- that matter and the malice. passed, killing it to meet and testimony, introduced this ing proper how and this occurred. explain why
Upon another trial if it is or advisable to introduce thought necessary the scene and location of the should be more plat plat killing, than that in accord with the exact facts and conditions pro- physical correspond duced on this trial in the court below. The plat ought at the real and locations nearly as with the conditions possible time and scene of the tragedy. admission before
Another raised to the introduction or objection was the matter presented by of' clothes of deceased. As. The in error. bill of the court was we are not clear that exceptions and it was entered, of the bullets matter was doubt as where one would show. It was claimed that of the clothes introduction Wit- or the rear. issue this from the front as to whether entered bullet testified nesses Dr. Wooten question. somewhat differed on or suggested thought entered from the front and not the rear. also quite show. There was State’s counsel that the clothes would front hole in the a certain as to whether discussion the hole was caused If the result of a tear shot. of the shirt was other two shown entrance front. bullet would indicate that were they wounds, as understand testimony, we the side. rear from Upon front nor the neither from the made made be to the wounds matter with reference trial this another admitted clothing may rule is that more clear and distinct. facts. of disputed the elucidation useful serve they purposes of this case as shown under the facts to say are not We prepared error. the clothes was admission of reversed will be indicated the reasons For *9 remanded. cause and remanded. Reversed PBEUDEBGA.ST, Judge, dissenting. Judge. contention, under his effect of appellant’s
MORROW, the District Court venue, is that the change to relating assignment tried, a court of was not his case was in which in either render might judgment and that any competent jurisdiction, If the would be void. convicting appellant or acquitting matter, could render then it subject of the without White’s the defendant. the State -or upon either binding State, 31 Texas Crim. Rep., v. 539, 367; McLain P., sec. p. C.C. State, 36 Texas 48; Leach v. 29 Texas Crim. State, v. McNeal of this State fixing Constitution in the no provision There is Tayiob 357 v. The State. 1917.1 cases, venue of of the criminal provision of offenses concerning prosecutions United States venue does control State, the laws of a State. Cox v. 8 Texas Crim. App., in cases, is, in or locality prose- Venue criminal that the place Pro- is in Code of Criminal cutions are Vernon’s begin, provided 123, cedure, 2, statute prosecution chapter page inflicted, or in where the injury for murder may begin county in 241-258. which death occurs. Arts. a there is distinction between Generally speaking, says: matter and venue. Article of the Constitution subject criminal cases have “The District Court shall “The 3, is follows: as of the Section felony.” grade be-vested in criminal cases shall the venue civil and change law, manner shall be provided by courts exercised such as The laws passed shall for that Legislature laws pass purpose.” 641, inclusive, for this are in articles 626 to Vernon’s embodied purpose motion, his C. C. P. Article 626 on own gives judge power, in his or an district. county own change any refusing granting Article 634 “The order of provides: upon unless the facts of venue revised upon shall not be change appeal are in a bill of exceptions pre- which the same was based presented at filed at the term of court which such approved pared, signed, the man- made.” Other statute provisions order pertain controversion, for of venue and'its ner of making application of venue may circumstances under which change and state'various other 629 is as fol- application Article parties. granted upon be effort has been once made any : “When an unsuccessful lows all means felony trial reasonable jury procure affidavit it made the written used, appear be been State, or other credible that no for the attorney person, order a county, be had can probably therefor to be the minutes the reasons placed and cause of the proceedings.” is, State often declared the civil courts rule general venue will changing of the court cases the order civil taken at the time and duly of exception in the absence reviewed cases in a number rule been criminal and this has applied preserved, Dodson, cases: State v. illustrated following of jurisdictions Patter, Kan., 16 Mo., 273; 61 State v. Mo., 284; State v. Hughes, 72 Ill., 83; Brennan State, Ind., 490; v. 4 People, v. Gardner 80; Leyner State, State, Ark., 536; Haws v. Ill., Kincade v. People, 1 Swan Ala., 37; Elleck (Tenn.), insisted, however, that article providing motion, order a of venue to any own *10 district judge may, a limitation the district, is or an adjoining in his own county 45, 3, courts article by the the venue change given power in the manner power to exercise the Constitution, failing and that Reports. 81 Texas Criminal prescribed 626, article by all; can not exercise it at an attempt that to exercise it in void, other any manner be that the judg void, ment rendered would be to which it transferred court, reviewable in consented to consequently although orig this or on their The inally by done without parties, objection part. attention, case in in only this State that has come to our which this statute, considered, State, 40 article is Grooms record, The facts are not identical with those this are similar to a reference to the case. In that case sufficiently justify there was a land title. The indictment prosecution forgery filed in Atascosa where the offense was committed County transferred consent to was not Travis which County, same statute, however, or district. There was a adjoining provid The have been in Travis ing prosecution could begun matter is “But disposed language: this following article to be made authorizes the in his own change any county or an district. Travis is not in adjacent adjoining district which Atascosa is situated. But however, authorizes that it be shown in the for a application change venue, otherwise, that all the counties which adjoining are subject to some valid prosecution pending objection, cause be removed to such think may proper. it will In that the court support change presumed to Travis acted and that property making change County, means that the same court was informed some reasons existed in that existed in Atascosa for the counties venue; and in such authorized to venue to case was There other as it think statement county, might proper.” opinion that consent will not cases give jurisdiction. only case, in that these referred to are those in the brief filed page subject matter are civil cases can not be holding venue. Practice, Hot so with Enc. of & consent. Pleading acquired vol. p. venue for the felonies, fixed no trial of having courts, the venue in vested the expressly
having the District Courts declares and specifically the District Court of Williamson felonies, all County having transferred to the in Bexar this cause District Court ordered made no either to the objection transfer of and the appellant it, I not think that the District or the trial of do Court of the cause matter so subject was without as to Bexar County not, therefore, I void. do believe that the assign- render its judgment think, however, be sustained. should I do this question ment raising in the record discussed in the assignments opinion are other there should result the reversal and remand- Judge Presiding cause. ing *11 Taybob v. The State.
1917.] Judge. ERGAST, affirmed, PREND re- This case should versed. I and am that under the Constitution clearly opinion the venue to statutes and to change clearly erroneously, But even changed the venue was such error waived bill excepting by proper changed. Taylor v. The State.
Elbert May No. 4389. Decided 1.—Murder—Evidence—Imputing Crime to Another —Alibi—Circumstan- tial Evidence. Where, murder, upon trial pleaded alibi defendant evi and offered dence to the effect that a short time before the homicide deceased drove away Fisher, father-in-law, wife from home and back to her and that his mother, family speaking deceased, members of his were not on termsi with at homicide, excluded, time of the testimony appeared and it record appeal the State circumstantial evidence alone relied on guilt, show defendant’s circumstances, one proved that he members of his family speaking were not on with deceased lived terms near the scene Held, competent homiside. for defendant show deceased, others proximity slay to the homicide ‘had a motive to and the rejection testimony above Following was reversible Burk error. State, Rep., 336, halter Texas v. Crim. and other cases. 2.—Same—Evidence—Imputing Crime to Another. Where, upon murder, trial of the court excluded several evidence that parties reversible unfriendly named entertained deceased, feeling towards there error, alleged ais such parties brought were not proximity within such offense, bring toas Following within the Wallace rule. State, v. Rep., and other cases. —Same—Disqualification Judge Special Venire. —District Court — Where, murder, upon trial regular disqualified judge district case, same, sit day did not but set the for a certain special Held, that, ordered a seventy-five venire of men. while the case, could set court, presided should not have over the which after- defendant, wards tried the when the of men list from whom trial drawn; was selected was case, as the Constitution forbids to sit in the Mm this comes within the inhibition. from the below before Appeal District Court of Caldwell. Tried Calhoun, Hon. George regular judge disqualified. being murder; from conviction Appeal twenty-five years penalty, the penitentiary. states the case. opinion Barber, & Fielder Will G. Jeffrey appellant. On State, W. venire: 147 S. special Knight
disqualification State, 8 Cock v. Reed id., tedious, At risk of we note some of cases wish to being many