Ex Parte Price, 24074.
Decision Date | 14 April 1948 |
Docket Number | No. 24074.,24074. |
Citation | 210 S.W.2d 152 |
Parties | Ex parte PRICE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Coleman County; O. L. Parish, Judge.
Habeas corpus proceeding by E. Solomon Price to obtain discharge from custody under an indictment charging a violation of the Blue Sky Law. From an order remanding him to custody of sheriff, relator appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Scarborough, Yates, Scarborough & Black, of Abilene, for appellant.
Ernest S. Goens, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Relator was indicted by the grand jury in Runnels County, Texas, charged with violating what is commonly known as the Texas Blue Sky Law, or Securities Law. Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. Art. 600a.
The indictment alleged specifically that relator engaged in the business of a dealer, by offering for sale, and selling a security, to wit, an assignment of oil and gas lease, without having first filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Texas his sworn application for registration as a dealer in such securities. Upon application of relator the venue was changed from Runnels County to Coleman County.
Relator then sought to be discharged under said indictment through habeas corpus proceedings before the District Judge of Coleman County. After a hearing the said judge remanded relator to the custody of the sheriff of said county, and it is from this order that relator appeals.
It has been held by this court either directly or inferentially that the Blue Sky Law, or the Securities Act is constitutional. See Atwood v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 543, 121 S.W.2d 353; Aiken v. State, 137 Tex. Cr.R. 211, 128 S.W.2d 1190; Muse v. State, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 622, 132 S.W.2d 596. The holding of our Supreme Court is to the same effect. Kadane v. Clark, 135 Tex. 496, 143 S.W.2d 197.
As we understand the record it was, and is, relator's contention that the facts do not bring him within the terms of the statute, he contending that he was not a "dealer" in contemplation of the statute in question, but that he was selling his own securities or oil leases, and that such act is not in violation of the statute requiring registration as a "dealer" with the Secretary of State.
There is found in the statement of facts the following agreement between the district attorney and the attorney for relator.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown v. Cole
... ... 635] 4. Petitioner is liable to respondents for the full purchase price of the security, plus interest ... The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is ... See Ex parte Price, 152 Tex.Cr.R. 633, 210 S.W.2d 152; Winslow v. Boyd, Tex.Civ.App., 195 S.W.2d 384; Fowler v ... ...
-
State v Cleaton
...to being searched, are all fact questions to be determined upon a trial in the district court. See id.; see also Ex parte Price, 210 S.W.2d 152, 153 (Tex.Crim.App. 1948) (not permissible to have district court in habeas corpus proceeding determine whether the accused is guilty under the fac......
-
Ex parte Mauck, 26243
... ... The sufficiency of the evidence to support the accusation may not be tested by habeas corpus. Ex parte Price, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 633, 210 S.W.2d 152 ... A woman may be convicted of rape where she acts as a principal with the man who commits the ... ...