Jacobs v. State

• Citation: 34 S.W. 110
• Parties: JACOBS v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 05 February 1896
• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Page 110

34 S.W. 110

JACOBS v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

February 5, 1896.

Appeal from Dallas county court; T. F. Nash, Judge.

Charlie Jacobs was indicted and tried for exhibiting a gaming bank for the purpose of gaming. He was convicted, and from a judgment on the verdict appeals. Affirmed.

Oeland & Smith and Martin W. Littleton, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.

HENDERSON, J.

The appellant in this case was tried for exhibiting a gaming bank for the purpose of gaming, was convicted, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $50 and 10 days' imprisonment in the county jail, and from the judgment of the lower court he prosecutes this appeal.

The appellant suggests as a reason why this case should be reversed that there was no order transferring the case or indictment and proceedings in the case from the criminal district court to the county court. The record does not bear out the contention of the appellant in this regard. The case was transferred from the district court to the county court of Dallas county. The appellant complains that it should have been transferred to a justice of the peace's court of precinct No. 1 of said county, the offense having transpired within the corporate limits of a city. It is sufficient answer to this proposition to say that the justice of the peace court had no jurisdiction of this offense, inasmuch as imprisonment in the county jail was a part of the penalty. The appellant further contends that the court had no jurisdiction of this cause, because there is not, and never had been, a valid indictment returned against defendant in said court, because he alleges: (1) "That the grand jury purporting to return this bill never furnished the county attorney of Dallas county, Texas, with a memorandum, as required by law, stating the name of the defendant, the nature of the offense, the time and place of its commission, and the names of the witnesses on whose testimony the accusation is sustained. (2) Because the grand jury purporting to return this bill of indictment never voted to find a bill of indictment in this cause, and because nine members of the grand jury did not concur in finding this bill of indictment, and because no vote was taken by said grand jury as to the presentment of a bill of indictment against this defendant. (3) Because certain persons not authorized by law were present when the grand jury were deliberating on the accusation against this defendant." This was presented to the court in the shape of a motion, and in support of the motion the entries of the grand-jury docket by the secretary thereof were introduced. These entries contain the name of the defendant, nature of the offense, and contain the memorandum of 10 bills. In connection therewith it was shown by one of the grand jurors, that no other entry was made, and that they voted once to find 10 bills against the...