Ervin v. State
Decision Date | 10 June 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 14197.,14197. |
Citation | 44 S.W.2d 380 |
Parties | ERVIN v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Taylor County; M. S. Long, Judge.
Claude Ervin was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Oliver Cunningham and J. F. Cunningham, both of Abilene, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The offense is possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for five years.
Before announcing ready for trial, appellant filed his motion to quash the jury panel, which was overruled. It appears that the members of the panel had been selected by jury commissioners at a regular term of the court convening in July, 1930. The trial was had at the next succeeding term, on September 19, 1930, before a jury drawn from this panel. The motion to quash directed the trial court's attention to the fact that the city of Abilene in the county of the prosecution had a population of 23,129 according to a preliminary announcement of the census made on May 6, 1930, by the supervisor of the census of the district embracing the city of Abilene. Appellant sought a jury drawn in accordance with the provisions of article 2094, Revised Statutes of 1925, as amended by the Acts of the Forty-First Legislature, 1929, c. 43, § 1 (Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. art. 2094), which provides for the "jury wheel system" in counties having a population of at least 58,000 or having therein a city of at least 20,000 population, as shown by the preceding federal census.
There is no specific provision in the Act of Congress June 18, 1929 (13 USCA § 201 et seq.), with reference to the time of final announcement of the census; nor is there any provision as to the time the census shall become effective. Under the terms of the Act of Congress March 6, 1902, § 11 (13 USCA § 4), the Director of the Census is required "to have printed, published, and distributed from time to time, bulletins and reports of the preliminary and other results of the various investigations authorized by law." Substantially to the same effect is section 13, Act of Congress June 18, 1929 (13 USCA § 213), which imposes on the Director the duty to have printed preliminary and other census bulletins and final reports of the results of the several investigations. Section 205, 13 USCA, reads as follows: "Each supervisor shall perform such duties as may be imposed upon him by the Director of the Census in the enforcement of this chapter," etc.
In Holcomb et al. v. Spikes, 232 S. W. 891, 894, the Court of Civil Appeals at Amarillo, Tex., in holding that a preliminary announcement of the census by the Director was an official pronouncement of which the public and all officials may take notice, said:
In the case at bar, the preliminary announcement of the census contained a statement that the figures were preliminary and subject to correction. Touching the effect of this statement, we quote further from the opinion in Holcomb et al. v. Spikes, supra, as follows:
In the case of Herndon v. Excise Board of Garfield County et al., 147 Okl. 126, 295 P. 223, 224, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma had under consideration the question as to whether a preliminary announcement of the census of Enid, Okl., by the supervisor of the district embracing said city was binding upon officials who were required to act with reference to the population of said city. The case of Holcomb et al. v. Spikes, supra, was cited in support of the conclusion that the preliminary announcement was an official pronouncement of which the public and all officials took notice and by which officials who were required to act in reference to the population therein stated should be guided. After citing the statutes relating to the duties of the Director of the Census and his supervisors, the court said:
It appears that the statutes of Oklahoma provided for a city court in cities having a population of more than 25,000 and less than 55,000, as shown by the last federal census. The preliminary announcement of the population of Enid was held to automatically bring said city within the operation of the statute. See, also, State v. Braskamp, 87 Iowa, 588, 54 N. W. 532.
The opinion is expressed that the preliminary announcement of the census of the city of Abilene was an official pronouncement. This announcement was made prior to the time the jury commissioners selected the panel from which the jury was drawn. The announcement of the population in the preliminary report should have been the guide of officials whose duty it was to act with reference thereto. The effect of the preliminary announcement was to place the county of the prosecution under the provisions of article 2094, Revised Statutes 1925, as amended. Hence the motion to quash the jury panel should have...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cahill v. Leopold
...made public by a duly authorized official. Herndon v. Excise Board of Garfield County, 147 Okl. 126, 127, 295 P. 223; Ervin v. State, 119 Tex.Cr.R. 204, 208, 44 S.W.2d 380; Holcomb v. Spikes, Tex.Civ.App., 232 S.W. 891, 893. The only case coming to my attention which holds that a census is ......
-
600 California Corporation v. Harjean Co.
...at the conclusion of the hearing." 9 Granville-Smith v. Granville-Smith, 349 U.S. 1, 75 S.Ct. 553, 99 L.Ed. 773 (1954); Ervin v. State, 119 Tex.Cr.R. 204, 44 S.W.2d 380; Holcomb v. Spikes, Tex.Civ. App., 232 S.W. 891, 894, no writ history. 10 Barstow Town Co. v. Carr, Tex.Civ. App., 234 S.W......
-
City of Twin Falls v. Koehler
...Tenn. 689 39 S.W.2d 1034; Puterbaugh v. Wadham, 162 Cal. 611, 123 P. 804; People v. Wong Wang, 92 Cal. 277, 28 P. 270; Ervin v. State, 119 Tex. Crim. 204, 44 S.W.2d 380; Holcomb v. Spikes (Texas), 232 891; State v. Braskamp, 87 Iowa 588, 54 N.W. 532; Board of Commrs. of Coal County v. Mathe......
-
City of Rochester v. Monroe County
...Holcomb v. Spikes, 232 S.W. 891 (Tex.Civ.App.), Herndon v. Excise Board of Garfield County, 147 Okl. 126, 295 P. 223, Ervin v. State, 119 Tex.Cr.R. 204, 44 S.W.2d 380, Forde v. Owens, 160 S.C. 168, 158 S.E. 147, Excise Board of Washita County v. Lowden, 189 Okl. 286, 116 P.2d 700 and Cahill......