Barlow v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Barlow v. State

80 S.W. 375, 47 Tex. Crim. 114, 1904 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 238

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 13, 1904

DocketNo. 2670.

StatusPublished

This text of 80 S.W. 375 (Barlow 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.

Bluebook

Barlow v. State, 80 S.W. 375, 47 Tex. Crim. 114, 1904 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 238 (Tex. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for violating the stock law. The admitted facts show that the petition to the commissioners court asking for the election was filed at 10:30 a. m. on the first day of the term of the county commissioners court. This was a term fixed by law. It is further an admitted fact that the court did not in fact convene until 1:30' p. m. of the same day. Over appellant’s objection it was shown that the custom of that court was to meet at 1:30 o’clock. It would be immaterial whether it was the custom of the court to meet or not; it could not change the law for the term, for under the statute it began on that day without fixing the hour for convening. The statute provides that the election to decide whether or not stock shall run at large shall be ordered at the next term after filing the petition. It can not be ordered at the term at which the petition is filed. Under the *115 authority of Robertson v. State, 6 Texas Ct. Rep., 20, the order of the commissioners court was illegal.

The judgment is therefore 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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for violating the stock law. The admitted facts show that the petition to the commissioners court asking for the election was filed at 10:30 a. m. on the first day of the term of the county commissioners court. This was a term fixed by law. It is further an admitted fact that the court did not in fact convene until 1:30' p. m. of the same day. Over appellant’s objection it was shown that the custom of that court was to meet at 1:30 o’clock. It would be immaterial whether it was the custom of the court to meet or not; it could not change the law for the term, for under the statute it began on that day without fixing the hour for convening. The statute provides that the election to decide whether or not stock shall run at large shall be ordered at the next term after filing the petition. It can not be ordered at the term at which the petition is filed. Under the *115 authority of Robertson v. State, 6 Texas Ct. Rep., 20, the order of the commissioners court was illegal.

The judgment is therefore reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

Reversed and dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 S.W. 375, 47 Tex. Crim. 114, 1904 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barlow-v-state-texcrimapp-1904.