Matheney v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Matheney v. State

198 S.W. 312, 82 Tex. Crim. 47, 1917 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 269

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 31, 1917

DocketNo. 4653.

StatusPublished

This text of 198 S.W. 312 (Matheney 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

Matheney v. State, 198 S.W. 312, 82 Tex. Crim. 47, 1917 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 269 (Tex. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law, his punishment being assessed at one year confinement in the penitentiary.

There is one bill of exceptions in the record reserved to the action of the court permitting the prosecution to introduce the order of the *48 Commissioners ■ Court declaring the result and entering an order to that effect putting local option into effect. The theory upon which this is presented is, that the Commissioners Court held its session on the ninth day after the election. The court qualifies this hill with the explanation that the election was not contested, and the certificate of the county judge to the fact that the order declaring the result of the election had been published as required by law; and the court further states that this was conclusive that the election was regular in the absence of a contest. It seems that the judge, in this respect, was in accord with the decisions of this court in regard to this matter. These decisions will be found collated in Branch’s Ann., Penal Code, p. 692. The evidence, we think, is sufficient to support the conviction under quite a line of decisions announced by this court.

We do not feel justified, under the circumstances, to set aside or interfere with the judgment, and it will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law, his punishment being assessed at one year confinement in the penitentiary.

There is one bill of exceptions in the record reserved to the action of the court permitting the prosecution to introduce the order of the *48 Commissioners ■ Court declaring the result and entering an order to that effect putting local option into effect. The theory upon which this is presented is, that the Commissioners Court held its session on the ninth day after the election. The court qualifies this hill with the explanation that the election was not contested, and the certificate of the county judge to the fact that the order declaring the result of the election had been published as required by law; and the court further states that this was conclusive that the election was regular in the absence of a contest. It seems that the judge, in this respect, was in accord with the decisions of this court in regard to this matter. These decisions will be found collated in Branch’s Ann., Penal Code, p. 692. The evidence, we think, is sufficient to support the conviction under quite a line of decisions announced by this court.

We do not feel justified, under the circumstances, to set aside or interfere with the judgment, and it will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 S.W. 312, 82 Tex. Crim. 47, 1917 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matheney-v-state-texcrimapp-1917.