Ex Parte Hoard

Decision Date01 November 1911
Citation140 S.W. 449
PartiesEx parte HOARD.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Appeal from Dallas County Court, at Law; W. F. Whitehurst, Judge.

Habeas corpus, on relation of Walter Hoard, alias Buddy George. From a judgment quashing the writ, relator appeals. Reversed, and order for relator's discharge.

Claude C. Westerfeldt and Wiley & Baskett, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, P. J.

The relator was convicted in the justice court for the offense of gaming. His fine was fixed at $10. A commitment was issued about the 23d of September, or between that date and the 1st of October, and he was put to work to pay out the fine.

The facts show: That Arrington, constable of precinct No. 7, Dallas county, made an affidavit against relator on the 28th day of June, 1909, charging relator with shooting craps on that date, and testifies they were both against relator for the same transaction. That he had made two affidavits, the latter one on the 16th of August, 1911, and these affidavits were made upon his personal knowledge that he saw relator shooting craps, and saw him bet more than one time, in fact several times on the same game. The justice of the peace of that precinct was introduced, and stated that he had been justice of the peace since the 1st of December, 1910, and that R. S. Greer was his predecessor; that the criminal docket kept by his predecessor was turned over to him as part of the records of his office when he took charge of it. The other docket was one he had kept himself since he had been holding the office, and that the entries on these dockets were correct. The complaint against the relator for shooting craps was signed by Jim Arrington, under which he was convicted, and dated August 16, 1911, and filed in his court on that date. Some days after that judgment was rendered against relator, and a capias pro fine subsequent to that was issued to execute the judgment. The affidavit of the 28th of June, 1909, was introduced and identified, and charged relator with playing at a game with dice called craps on the 26th of June, 1909, and filed on 28th of June, 1909.

This case, after conviction, was appealed to the county court of Dallas county, and filed in that court on the 6th of July, 1909. The judgment of the justice court of June 28, 1909, was also introduced, showing the conviction. It was then shown that the case was filed in the county court of Dallas county on the 6th of July, 1909; that on September 17th, in the county court, an order was entered passing the case on account of relator's sickness; that was dated under this record 1910. The bond was forfeited and the alias capias ordered issued. In April, 1911, the case was dismissed on motion of the county attorney from the county court of Dallas county. Relator then introduced the minutes of the justice court of precinct No. 7 of Dallas county, as identified by Justice Grigsby, which shows the complaint was filed on the 16th day of August, 1911, made by Arrington against relator charging him with gaming. The warrant issued on the 16th day of August, and was placed in Arrington's hands and executed on the 16th of August. Subpœna was issued on that date, and returned executed that date. On the 22d of August the case was heard, and relator waived a jury and entered a plea of guilty, and the court assessed his punishment at $10, and judgment followed. On the 23d of September, by virtue of a capias pro fine from that court, relator was taken into custody, and was held as a convict.

The contention is that this judgment is void, and that there is nothing under which relator can be held, and under the writ of habeas corpus he is entitled to a discharge. We suppose that relator brought both of these matters to the attention of the court in the writ below and here in order to demonstrate that the execution would not be valid under either. It will be observed that the writ of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • State v. Yount
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 24 février 1993
    ...113 S.W. 534 (1908), this Court sustained a pre-trial challenge to prosecution for a limitations barred offense. In Ex parte Hoard, 63 Tex.Cr.R. 519, 140 S.W. 449 (1911), we sustained a post-conviction collateral attack on the basis of a limitations bar. In both Ex parte Conway, 118 Tex.Cr.......
  • Menefee v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 5 octobre 1977
    ...fundamentally defective that the trial court does not have jurisdiction and habeas corpus relief should be granted. Ex parte Hoard, 63 Tex.Cr.R. 519, 140 S.W. 449 (1911); cf. Ex parte Stein, 61 Tex.Cr.R. 320, 135 S.W. 136 (1911); People v. McGee, 1 Cal.2d 611, 36 P.2d 378 (1934); Ex parte V......
  • Ex Parte Jarvis
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 15 février 1928
    ...he had appealed. No other remedy than resort to habeas corpus was available. This was also true as to one branch of Hoard's Case, 63 Tex. Cr. R. 519, 140 S. W. 449. In Hardcastle's Case, 84 Tex. Cr. R. 463, 208 S. W. 531, 2 A. L. R. 1539, there was no other remedy than the writ of habeas co......
  • State v. Steensland
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 1 mars 1921
    ... ... (People v. Miller, supra; Vaughn v ... Congdon, supra; People v. Gregory, ... supra; Ex parte Hoard, 63 Tex. Crim ... 519, 140 S.W. 449.) [33 Idaho 532] In People v. Miller, ... supra, it is said: ... "The ... object of pleading ... ...
  • 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