Lindley v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Lindley v. State

55 S.W.2d 846, 1932 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 822

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided December 21, 1932·No. No. 15762·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

MORROW, P. J.

The prosecution is apparently based upon article 1056, P. C. 1925, and charges that the appellant unlawfully and intentionally diverted natural gas from the pipe lines of R. L. Pearcy.

The penalty allowed by statute is not less than $25 nor more than $100. The penalty assessed in the present instance is a fine of $25. The prosecution originated in the justice court and was appealed' to the county court. Therefore, this court has no jurisdiction of the appeal. Such is the declaration of article 53, C. C. P. 1925. See, also, Ragsdale v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 47 S.W.(2d) 278.

The appeal is dismissed.

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

MORROW, P. J.

The prosecution is apparently based upon article 1056, P. C. 1925, and charges that the appellant unlawfully and intentionally diverted natural gas from the pipe lines of R. L. Pearcy.

The penalty allowed by statute is not less than $25 nor more than $100. The penalty assessed in the present instance is a fine of $25. The prosecution originated in the justice court and was appealed' to the county court. Therefore, this court has no jurisdiction of the appeal. Such is the declaration of article 53, C. C. P. 1925. See, also, Ragsdale v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 47 S.W.(2d) 278.

The appeal is dismissed.

Lindley v. State, 55 S.W.2d 846, 1932 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 822 (Tex. 1932).

Pincite

55 S.W.2d 846 (Lindley v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related