Golson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Golson v. State

179 S.W. 560, 77 Tex. Crim. 572

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 20, 1915

DocketNo. 3731

StatusPublished

This text of 179 S.W. 560 (Golson 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

Golson v. State, 179 S.W. 560, 77 Tex. Crim. 572 (Tex. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, J.,

This case arose in the justice court, and the conviction there occurred, and a fine of ?5 imposed and all costs of court.

The complaint charged the defendant with boarding a freight train on the track of the St. Louis & Southwestern Railway Company, 'with intent to obtain a free ride, and with- . out any lawful business thereon, and without the consent of the conductor in charge of said •train. Motion was'made in the county court [561]*561to dismiss tlie appeal for want of final judgment, and sustained by the court. Notice of appeal was given to this court. The Assistant Attorney General asks this court to dismiss this ease because there was no final judgment in the justice court, and that the action of the county court in dismissing the appeal was correct. This motion cannot be sustained. The judgment is a sufficient final judgment, and the county court should have entertained jurisdiction and tried the case de novo. Terry v. State, 30 Tex. App. 408, 17 S. W. 1075; Ex parte Dickerson, 30 Tex. App. 448, 17 S. W. 1076; Ex parte Cox, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 241, 109 S. W. 369; Ex parte Williford, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 418, 100 S. W. 919; Ex parte White, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 474, 98 S. W. 850; Ex parte Crawford, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 182, 36 S. W. 92. Some of these eases are not directly in point, but all bear on the question, and all approve Ex parte Dickerson, supra.

For the reasons indicated the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for trial de novo in the county court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DAVIDSON, J.,

This case arose in the justice court, and the conviction there occurred, and a fine of ?5 imposed and all costs of court.

The complaint charged the defendant with boarding a freight train on the track of the St. Louis & Southwestern Railway Company, 'with intent to obtain a free ride, and with- . out any lawful business thereon, and without the consent of the conductor in charge of said •train. Motion was'made in the county court [561]*561to dismiss tlie appeal for want of final judgment, and sustained by the court. Notice of appeal was given to this court. The Assistant Attorney General asks this court to dismiss this ease because there was no final judgment in the justice court, and that the action of the county court in dismissing the appeal was correct. This motion cannot be sustained. The judgment is a sufficient final judgment, and the county court should have entertained jurisdiction and tried the case de novo. Terry v. State, 30 Tex. App. 408, 17 S. W. 1075; Ex parte Dickerson, 30 Tex. App. 448, 17 S. W. 1076; Ex parte Cox, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 241, 109 S. W. 369; Ex parte Williford, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 418, 100 S. W. 919; Ex parte White, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 474, 98 S. W. 850; Ex parte Crawford, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 182, 36 S. W. 92. Some of these eases are not directly in point, but all bear on the question, and all approve Ex parte Dickerson, supra.

For the reasons indicated the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for trial de novo in the county court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.W. 560, 77 Tex. Crim. 572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/golson-v-state-texcrimapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack