In re Juneman

• Decision Date: 03 May 1890
• Citation: 13 S.W. 783
• Parties: <I>In re</I> JUNEMAN <I>et al.</I>
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

13 S.W. 783

In reJUNEMANet al.

Court of Appeals of Texas.

May 3, 1890.

On application for habeas corpus.

Stubbs & Stubbs and Waul & Walker, for relators.Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.

HURT, J.

The terms of the criminal district court for Galveston county are limited, as to time of commencing and ending, by article 1502 of the Revised Statutes.That article provides that "said judge shall hold a term of said court in the city of Galveston, county of Galveston, on the first Mondays in the months of January, March, May, July, and November.* * * The terms of said courts may continue four weeks, unless the business be sooner disposed of."The first Monday of March, 1890, is made the first day, or the beginning day, for the March term.Applicants, being indicted in the criminal district court of the city and county of Galveston, were placed on trial on the 24th day of March, 1890.The trial continued, without verdict of the jury, until Sunday morning, March 30, 1890, between the hours of 7 and 8 o'clock A. M., when the jury returned a verdict finding the applicants W. T. Allen, Henry Weyer, and Fred Koehler guilty of murder in the second degree, and Charles Juneman guilty of manslaughter.On the same day, March 30, 1890, applicants moved in arrest of judgment, upon the ground that no legal judgment could be entered, because the verdict was returned into court on Sunday, March 30, after the term had expired.On the 31st day of March the motion was overruled, and judgment entered, and sentence pronounced.Until placed on trial, applicants were under bonds, which appear among the papers in this case.Believing the verdict and judgment thereon to be void, and believing that they have no appeal to this court, the applicants have presented to this court their application for the writ of habeas corpus, seeking to have said verdict and judgment declared void, and to be released upon their bonds.

If these applicants have or had the right to appeal their case to this court, the writ will not be awarded.Does an appeal lie, under the above facts? is the first question.Preliminary to this, another question arises, which is, when did the term of the court expire?This question arose in Harper v. State, 43 Tex. 431.GOULD, J., says: "We are of the opinion that the `two weeks' during which the term might continue ended at 12 o'clock on the night of Saturday, March 20th.The rule of the common law forbids any judicial act on the Sabbath.Citing Nabors v. State, 6 Ala. 203;Baxter v. People, 3 Gilman, 368; * * * Story v. Elliot, 8 Cow. 27. The well-established usages of the people and courts of this and the other states of the Union require that the word `weeks' be construed as embracing only the six judicial days of the final week of the term. * * * If, however, we look to our statute alone, it is evidently intended that the court should end on Saturday night.Article 3150, Pasch.Dig., is: `If at the time a verdict is returned into court there be less than six hours remaining before the court must by law adjourn, it shall be lawful, and shall be the duty of the district judge to sit during the whole of Saturday night and Sunday for the purpose of enabling the defendant to move for a new trial, or in arrest of judgment, and prepare his cause for the supreme court.'In thus providing for a particular case in which the court may continue for certain purposes beyond the time it must otherwise adjourn, it is plain that an adjournment on Saturday night is intended."This opinion, and the authorities therein cited, would seem to settle...