Cummings v. State
| Decision Date | 27 May 1896 |
| Docket Number | (No. 864.) |
| Citation | 35 S.W. 979 |
| Parties | CUMMINGS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Bexar county; Robert B. Green, Judge.
W. E. Cummings was convicted of theft, and appeals. Affirmed.
Ed. Haltom, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of the theft of a diamond stud, of the value of $250, and appeals. The statement of facts, in substance, consists of an agreement of the guilt of the appellant. The only question presented for revision in this court is one pertaining to the jurisdiction of the court which tried this case. Bearing upon this issue, the record discloses that the indictment was presented by the grand jury of the Forty-Fifth judicial district into the said judicial district court and transferred from said district to the Thirty-Seventh judicial district. There was no order of transfer accompanying the indictment from the Forty-Fifth to the Thirty-Seventh judicial district. When the motion in arrest of judgment was made, upon the ground stated, the district attorney filed, in answer to said motion, a certified copy of the orders from the minutes of the Forty-Fifth judicial district, showing that the grand jury had presented the indictment in this case in said court, and that the judge of said court had entered an order transferring said indictment and said cause to the Thirty-Seventh judicial district. This he was authorized to do under the act of 1895. The legislature authorized the judges of the Thirty-Seventh and Forty-Fifth judicial districts, in their discretion, to transfer any suit or cause of action, civil or criminal, from one of said district courts to the other. See Acts 1895, pp. 181, 182. Said act of the legislature does not require a copy of the orders to accompany the transfer of said cause. While it would be more regular to do so, yet it seems not to have been necessary, in the contemplation of the legislature. Whether it be necessary or not that these orders accompany the transfer, when the jurisdiction of the court is attacked on the ground that the cause was improperly placed on the docket of the district to which it was transferred, we think it a sufficient answer that the proper orders were entered in the court making the transfer, at the time of making same; and it would not be too late to file a copy of said orders in answer to the motion in arrest of judgment. It was simply a question as to whether the Thirty-Seventh judicial district had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Littleton v. State
...36th Leg. 3d Called Sess., c. 33, § 7. The power of the court to make such a transfer has been approved by this court. Cummings v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 437, 35 S. W. 979. Such a transfer is not a change of venue. Bonding Co. v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. R. 661, 165 S. W. 615. The law requires the......
-
General Bonding & Casualty Ins. Co. v. State
...to the able reasoning of those cases, and the law is as therein decided, we think, beyond question. In the case of Cummings v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 436, 35 S. W. 979, it was held that, where the Legislature authorized judges of the Thirty-Seventh and Forty-Fifth judicial districts to trans......
-
Harbolt v. State
...enter the order of the court for said special term, and the notices and sheriff's return on same, in the first instance. Cummings v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 35 S. W. 979; Vance v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 395, 30 S. W. The district court of Hardeman county had jurisdiction of the subject-matter ......