Gordon v. State
| Decision Date | 01 January 1877 |
| Citation | 47 Tex. 208 |
| Parties | JOHN F. GORDON v. THE STATE OF TEXAS. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Guadalupe. Tried below before the Hon. John P. White.
This was a proceeding instituted on the 3d day of July, 1875, by the district attorney for the county of Guadalupe, to remove John F. Gordon from the office of sheriff, for official misconduct and neglect of official duty. On the trial, in July, 1875, the presiding judge, without the intervention of a jury, the case being submitted to him, after hearing the evidence and arguments, adjudged that Gordon was unfit longer to hold the office of sheriff, and that the office was vacant. From this judgment Gordon appealed. The judgment was rendered on the 15th of October, 1875. This decision was rendered by the Supreme Court on the 4th of May, 1877. The Constitution of 1876 provides, (art. 5, sec. 24,) “county judges, county attorneys, clerks of the District and County Courts, justices of the peace, constables, and other county officers, may be removed, by judges of the District Court, for incompetency, official misconduct, habitual drunkenness, or other cause defined by law, upon the cause therefor being set forth in writing, and the finding of its truth by a jury.”
W. E. Goodrich, for appellant.
No briefs for appellee have reached the Reporters.
This suit must be dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. The peculiar and summary power to remove the sheriff, conferred by the Constitution of 1869, does not now exist. (Sec. 18, art. 5, Const. 1869.)
The remedy for a removal of the sheriff and other county officers, prescribed in the Constitution of 1876, is different, in that it requires the facts constituting the grounds of removal to be presented in a written charge, and to be found to be true by a jury. (Sec. 24, art. 5, Const. 1876.) The District Court would, therefore, have no power to carry into effect the judgment of this court, if it was affirmed here, and sent back there. In addition to this, the term of office of the sheriff has long since expired, and a decision would be useless and inoperative.
DISMISSED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Verner v. Tomlinson
...v. State ex rel. Eubank, 87 Tex. 562, 29 S.W. 649; Id., Tex.Sup., 29 S.W. 1063; Lacoste v. Duffy, 49 Tex. 767, 30 Am.Rep. 122; Gordon v. State, 47 Tex. 208; Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank et al. v. Dallas County Levee Imp. Dist. No. 9 et al., 263 S.W. 1103; Teer et al. v. McGann et al., Tex.C......
-
Watkins v. Huff
...are abundant that the courts will proceed no further with the litigation. Lacoste v. Duffy, 49 Tex. 767, 30 Am. Rep. 122; Gordon v. State, 47 Tex. 208; Corporation v. Paulding, 4 Mart. (N. S.) 189; Ex parte Mackey, 15 S. C. 322; Cristman v. Peck, 90 Ill. 150; Colvard v. Board, 95 N. C. 515;......
-
Richmond v. Hog Creek Oil Co.
...generally, is well settled by the following decisions of that court itself: Lacoste v. Duffy, 49 Tex. 767, 30 Am. Rep. 122; Gordon v. State, 47 Tex. 208; Robinson v. State, 87 Tex. 562, 29 S. W. 649; McWhorter v. Northcut, 94 Tex. 86, 58 S. W. 720; Riggins v. Richards, 97 Tex. 526, 80 S. W.......
-
Hart v. Britton
...present moot questions, because not now attainable, or enforceable, in this court, and as a consequence will not be reviewed. Gordon v. State, 47 Tex. 208; Lacoste v. Duffy, 49 Tex. 767, 30 Am. Rep. 122; McWhorter v. Northcut, 94 Tex. 86, 58 S. W. 720; Watkins v. Huff, 94 Tex. 631, 64 S. W.......