DeVries v. Taylor, No. B--4339

CourtSupreme Court of Texas
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation505 S.W.2d 780
PartiesJohn H. DeVRIES, Relator, v. George D. TAYLOR, Respondent.
Docket NumberNo. B--4339
Decision Date18 December 1973

Page 780

505 S.W.2d 780
John H. DeVRIES, Relator,
v.
George D. TAYLOR, Respondent.
No. B--4339.
Supreme Court of Texas.
Dec. 18, 1973.

Goodwin & Hawthorn, Joseph C. Hawthorn, Beaumont, Craig A. Washington, Houston, for relator.

Larry Gist, Asst. Dist. Atty., Beaumont, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This motion urges the right to a writ of mandamus to enforce the mandatory continuance of a trial upon the application of a member of the Legislature, pursuant to Article 2168a, Vernon's Ann.Tex.Stat.

John H. DeVries is charged with murder with malice in Cause No. 31,085 in the Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas. Honorable George D. Taylor is the presiding judge of that court. Judge Taylor has conducted several hearings and has ruled upon numerous motions in the cause. The relator has at all times been vigorously represented by attorneys Joe B. Goodwin and Joseph Hawthorn of Beaumont. On November 16, 1973, Judge Taylor by announcement in open court and by a written order set the case for trial on December 3, 1973.

On December 10 a motion for continuance was presented in which it was set forth that relator was also represented by Honorable Craig A. Washington, State Representative from the 86th District, Harris County, and that the continuance must be granted because the members of the Legislature will sit as the Constitutional Convention which convenes on January 8, 1974. At a subsequent hearing before the trial court, held at the request of the Supreme Court after motion for leave to file petition for mandamus was first received, Representative Washington testified that he was employed in the course of a telephone conversation with attorney Goodwin on November 27, 1973, that he intended to participate actively in the trial,

Page 781

that he would not under any circumstances accept employment for the purpose of obtaining a legislative continuance, and that he was told that the case was set for trial on December 10. On that basis he signed the affidavit in support of the motion for continuance on December 4. The error about the date of the setting apparently explains the insistence upon the mandatory continuance.

The statutory right of the legislator, as attorney or party, to continuance of judicial proceedings has had an active history. Controversy has attended it in press, court and legislative hall. See, Government Services Ins. Underwriters v. Jones, 368 S.W.2d 560 (Tex.1963); Mora v. Ferguson,145 Tex. 498, 199 S.W.2d 759...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Collier v. Poe, No. 69739
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • May 20, 1987
    ...branches of state government. The controversy has often swirled "in the press, court and legislative hall," DeVries v. Taylor, 505 S.W.2d 780 (Tex.1973), and the subject matter has frequently become a ballot box issue in legislative It has been said that it is the inherent right of courts t......
  • Schwartz v. Jefferson, No. B--5011
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • March 19, 1975
    ...set for trial.' The latter provision was applied by this Court in upholding the denial of a legislative continuance in DeVries v. Taylor, 505 S.W.2d 780 Article 2168a, as amended in 1941, was held to require a continuance of a pending criminal suit upon motion of a legislator attorney in Mo......
  • Lemoine v. Martineau, Nos. 75-72-M
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • July 29, 1975
    ...Thereafter the statute was amended so that the right to a continuance is now a matter for the court's discretion. See DeVries v. Taylor, 505 S.W.2d 780 Page 622 Before concluding, we would offer a brief comment on Lemoine's contention that § 22-4-3 is but a reaffirmation of art. IV, § 5 of ......
  • In re Brittingham-Sada, No. 04-09-00489-CV.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • October 14, 2009
    ...to go behind Mr. Uresti's affidavit to ascertain facts and act upon its findings in the exercise of its discretion. DeVries v. Taylor, 505 S.W.2d 780 (Tex. 1973)." The motion requested the court to compel Senator Uresti "to appear for a deposition so that he can be interrogated about matter......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Collier v. Poe, No. 69739
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • May 20, 1987
    ...branches of state government. The controversy has often swirled "in the press, court and legislative hall," DeVries v. Taylor, 505 S.W.2d 780 (Tex.1973), and the subject matter has frequently become a ballot box issue in legislative It has been said that it is the inherent right of courts t......
  • Schwartz v. Jefferson, No. B--5011
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • March 19, 1975
    ...set for trial.' The latter provision was applied by this Court in upholding the denial of a legislative continuance in DeVries v. Taylor, 505 S.W.2d 780 Article 2168a, as amended in 1941, was held to require a continuance of a pending criminal suit upon motion of a legislator attorney in Mo......
  • Lemoine v. Martineau, Nos. 75-72-M
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • July 29, 1975
    ...Thereafter the statute was amended so that the right to a continuance is now a matter for the court's discretion. See DeVries v. Taylor, 505 S.W.2d 780 Page 622 Before concluding, we would offer a brief comment on Lemoine's contention that § 22-4-3 is but a reaffirmation of art. IV, § 5 of ......
  • In re Brittingham-Sada, No. 04-09-00489-CV.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • October 14, 2009
    ...to go behind Mr. Uresti's affidavit to ascertain facts and act upon its findings in the exercise of its discretion. DeVries v. Taylor, 505 S.W.2d 780 (Tex. 1973)." The motion requested the court to compel Senator Uresti "to appear for a deposition so that he can be interrogated about matter......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT