Anderson v. State
This text of 92 S.W. 39 (Anderson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Conviction for violating the local option law. On February 15, 1900, the commissioners court ordered an election in a portion of justice precinct number 6 of Navarro County. This subdivision of said justice precinct embraces five school districts. The contention is that under this order of the court the election was void, because school districts could not he combined. This contention is correct. Ex parte Heyman, 45 Texas Crim. Rep., 532, 78 S. W. Rep., 349, 9 Texas Ct. Rep., 140; Ex parte Mills, 79 S. W. Rep., 555; Ex parte Mitchell, 79 S. W. Rep., 558; Ex parte Wells, 78 S. W. Rep., 928; Board v. Buchanan, 82 S. W. Rep., 194, 10 Texas Ct. Rep., 652; Nolan Co. v. Beall, 81 S. W. Rep., 526, 10 Texas Ct. Rep., 526. The judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
Reversed and dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
92 S.W. 39, 49 Tex. Crim. 195, 1906 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-state-texcrimapp-1906.