Ex Parte Williams
| Decision Date | 26 June 1895 |
| Parties | Ex parte WILLIAMS. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Fannin county court; James Q. Chenoweth, Judge.
Butler Williams was arrested for selling whisky in Fannin county, in violation of the local option law. His application to be released on habeas corpus was denied, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Taylor, Galloway & McGrady, for appellant. Mann Trice, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Relator was arrested for selling whisky in Fannin county, in violation of the local option law. Applicant applied to the Honorable James Q. Chenoweth, judge of the county court of Fannin county, for a writ of habeas corpus, for the purpose of being discharged from arrest, contending that the local option election in Fannin county was void:
First. That the commissioners' court had no right to order the election when it was ordered. This contention is settled against relator, not only by the statute, but by the opinion in Ex parte Segars, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 553, 25 S. W. 26.
Second. Because writs of election were not issued to the presiding officers of the various election districts in the county. It is not denied but that the election was held at each voting precinct, that the election was without fraud; nor that it was fair and just and honest. Elections being held at all of the precincts of the county, the fact that the writs were not delivered to the officers should not vitiate the election. The law does not provide that the election shall be void unless such writs are issued to the officers.
Third. That the officers of some of the boxes began to count the vote before the polls were closed, and continued to count the votes until the close of the polls. The statute provides that the votes shall be counted after the polls have closed, but this is not an inhibition against counting the votes before its close. We can see no merit in this proposition.
Fourth. It is not necessary to enter a petition of the qualified voters for an election upon the minutes of the commissioners' court.
Fifth. That the election was void because the order of election directed that the election should be held at the regular voting places; that this was not done after said order was made; that the commissioners' court discontinued one of the voting boxes or election precincts, and created three new voting boxes or election precincts, the election having been held at the voting boxes as so changed and created. The fact is, after the election was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harper v. Dotson
...candidate by reason of such irregularity. (Bowers v. Smith, 111 Mo. 45, 33 Am. St. 491, 20 S.W. 101, 16 L. R. A. 754; Ex parte Williams, 35 Tex.Crim. 75, 31 S.W. 653; Stemper v. Higgins, 38 Minn. 222, 37 N.W. 95; v. City of Devils Lake, 25 N.D. 207, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 624, 141 N.W. 756.) Mere......
-
Roper v. Scurlock
...149, 22 S. W. 413; Lillard v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 53 S. W. 125; Waggoner v. Wise Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 43 S. W. 836; Ex parte Williams, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 75, 31 S. W. 653. 5. It is contended that the court erred in holding that proper and legal notice of said election held on the 13th of Sept......
-
Elvick v. Groves
...polling places, contestant must allege and prove loss of votes. Farrington v. Turner, 18 N.W. 544; Ex Parte Segars, 25 S.W. 26; Ex parte Williams, 31 S.W. 653; Stemper Higgins, 37 N.W. 95; Roper v. Scurlock, 69 S.W. 456; Simons v. Dunning, 9 N.E. 220; Bordwell v. State, 91 S.W. 555; Perry v......
-
Nelson v. State
...complied with; and the orders thereon were entirely in accord with the precedents heretofore approved by this court. Williams v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 75, 31 S. W. 653; Morton v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 131, 38 S. W. 1019; Ex parte Schilling, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 290, 42 S. W. 553. The last-cited c......