Perry v. State

Decision Date01 January 1874
Citation41 Tex. 488
PartiesN. S. PERRY v. THE STATE.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from Kaufman. Tried below before the Hon. M. H. Bonner.

J. J. Hill, for appellant, cited Pas. Dig., arts. 2625, 2627, 2628; Hurd on Habeas Corpus, 330, 331, 355, 360; Yarbrough v. The State, 2 Tex., 519;Ex parte Tobias Watkins, 3 Pet., 193; Cooley's Const. Lim., 348, and authorities in note 2; The People v. McLeod, 25 Wend., 483; Pas. Dig., arts. 2410 a,i 2410 ib, 2382, 3095, 3096; Counts v. The State, 37 Tex., 593;Slaughter v. The State, 24 Tex., 415; 2 Graham & Waterman on New Trials, and the note beginning on page 52, collating all the authorities.

George Clark, Attorney General, for the State.

MOORE, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.

It appears from the record that appellant is held in custody by the sheriff of Kaufman county to answer five several indictments for theft, returned into the District Court of said county, wherein they are still pending and undetermined. It further appears that the writ of habeas corpus for which appellant prayed was not sought, that he might be enlarged on bail. But it is claimed by him that he is entitled to an absolute and unconditional discharge from custody. The right to a discharge is based upon the fact of appellant's having been previously convicted in said court, on another indictment for theft of a steer, found at the same term of the court as the indictments under which he is now held in custody. All of said indictments, it is insisted, having been found on the same evidence, and on account of the same transaction, are, therefore, claimed to be for one and the same supposed offense.

An application for a habeas corpus for the purpose and under the circumstances for which this was made, is certainly novel, and without precedent in the courts of this State. It would seem to have been long since much too well established by the common law, as well as our statutes, that an indictment not void upon its face, regularly returned to and pending in a court having jurisdiction thereof, could only be disposed of by some appropriate proceeding in such court, for an experiment such as the present.

The practice at common law in the court of the King's Bench is thus stated in Wilmot's Opinions, 106: (Hurd on Habeas Corpus, 331.)

“In imprisonment for criminal offenses the court can act upon it only in one of three manners:

1. If it appear clearly that the fact for which the party is committed is no crime, or that it is a crime, but he is committed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Ex Parte Graves
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • January 2, 2002
    ...with errors or irregularities which render proceedings voidable merely, but such only as to render them absolutely void." Perry v. State, 41 Tex. 488, 490 (1874). See also, Ex Parte Scwartz, 2 Tex.App. 74, 80-81 (1877) (proceeding defective for irregularities and one void for illegality may......
  • Ex Parte McKay
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • December 5, 1917
    ...Ex parte Boland, 11 Tex. App. 159; Ex parte Japan, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 482, 38 S. W. 43; Ex parte Ezell, 40 Tex. 451, 19 Am. Rep. 32; Perry v. State, 41 Tex. 488; Ex parte Scwartz, 2 Tex. App. 74, and numerous cases cited in Michie's Crim. Digest, p. 441; Ex parte Degener, 30 Tex. App. 566, 17 S......
  • Ex parte Banks
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • March 29, 1989
    ...governing the situation, viz: "... The writ of habeas corpus is not available as a means of effecting the purposes of an appeal. Perry v. State, 41 Tex. 488; Ex parte Scwartz, 2 Tex.App. 74; Ex parte Oliver, 3 Tex.App. 345; Ex parte Dickerson, 30 Tex.App. 448, 17 S.W. 1076. The matters comp......
  • Eureka County Bank Habeas Corpus Cases
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • September 9, 1912
    ...is sought merely as a method of appeal or supersedeas, and, under the authority of the cases of Ex parte Scwartz, 2 Tex.App. 74, Perry v. State, 41 Tex. 488, Ex Dickerson, 30 Tex.App. 448, 17 S.W. 1076, and the still later case of Ex parte Cox, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 240, 109 S.W. 369, cannot be en......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT