DocketNumber: No. 6578.
Judges: Lattimore
Filed Date: 11/14/1923
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/15/2024
From a conviction of aggravated assault in the District Court of Jim Wells County, this appeal was taken.
Appellant was put upon trial for assault to murder in the District Court of Jim Wells County at its June term 1921, and his conviction for aggravated assault followed with punishment fixed at a fine of $300 and ninety days in jail.
But one question raised needs discussion. Appellant asserts that the Act of the Thirty-Seventh Legislature, Chapter 8, Acts Regular Session, was wrongfully held to be in operation on June 13, 1921, the day of the convening of the trial term of the court below, — and that his conviction at such term was null and void because the court was without jurisdiction to try him or to render judgment. The ground of his contention is that the operation of said Act necessarily denied to Duval County, one of the counties of the Seventy-ninth Judicial District, its right under the Constitution to two terms of the district court for the year 1921. The object and purpose of the Act under consideration was to change the time of holding courts and to fix terms for the District Courts in the various counties of the Seventy-ninth Judicial District.
Construing Section 7 Article 5 of our Constitution, the courts of this State seem uniformly to have held same to entitle each county in the State to at least two terms of its District Court each calendar year. Womack v. Womack,
There being no question but that the trial term of the court below convened at the time fixed by the new law, and that for the reasons above stated it was without authority to convene at said time or to act in the premises, we are compelled to give effect to the holdings of this court and to declare the trial court without jurisdiction to then convene or to act in the case before us. The fundamental character of this question seems not to have been controverted. In Ex parte Thompson, supra, this court granted a writ of habeas corpus to one confined in the penitentiary under a conviction and judgment rendered under circumstances similar to those here presented, and directed the discharge of the relator. A lack of jurisdiction to hear and decide a case in the same district under operation of the new law, has been decided by the Honorable Court of Civil Appeals at San Antonio in Engleman v. Anderson, et al., 244 S.W. Rep., 650.
For the reasons above given the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and Remanded.