Reeves v. State
Decision Date | 25 January 1924 |
Docket Number | (No. 2846.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Citation | 258 S.W. 577 |
Parties | REEVES v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Titus County; R. T. Wilkinson, Judge.
Proceeding by the State in the nature of a quo warranto to remove John J. Reeves from the office of Sheriff of Titus County. The defendant was removed, and he appeals. Affirmed.
This is a proceeding under the statute, in the nature of a quo warranto, in the name of the state of Texas, upon the relation of the district and county attorneys, and represented by them, to remove from office the sheriff of Titus county for alleged official misconduct. The accusations filed against the respondent are alleged in the complaint, substantially stated, as follows:
(1) That J. J. Reeves, while sheriff of Titus county, and during the year 1921, knowingly and willfully, and for pay therefor, protected, aided, and encouraged Arthur Tigert in the continuous violation in Titus county of the laws of Texas against the manufacture of spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors capable of producing intoxication, in that
(2) That J. J. Reeves, while sheriff of Titus county, and during the year 1921, knowingly and willfully, and for pay therefor, protected, aided, and encouraged Jesse Godsey in the continuous violation in Titus county of the laws of Texas against the manufacture of spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors capable of producing intoxication, in that (here follow substantially the same averments of agreement as in charge 1, supra).
(3) That J. J. Reeves, while sheriff of Titus county, and during the year 1921, (1) "caused Clem Gray to transport from Mt. Pleasant, Tex., to Dallas, Tex., and there to sell same, all in violation of law, whisky captured by the said J. J. Reeves as sheriff of said Titus county while making raids on stills in Titus county, and held by him as sheriff," and (2) "sold to Clem Gray, in violation of law, about 70 gallons of spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors capable of producing intoxication, which was captured by him as such sheriff while making raids on stills in Titus county."
(4) That J. J. Reeves, while sheriff of Titus county, knowingly and willfully protected, aided, and encouraged Ed. Milner, and expressly agreed with Ed. Milner that for pay he might and could continue to violate in Titus county the laws of the state of Texas against the manufacture of spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors capable of producing intoxication, in this: (1) That "in the year 1921, at different times," and "during some of the year 1922," Ed. Milner paid to J. J. Reeves, "in his office in the courthouse in Mt. Pleasant, Titus county, Tex.," and J. J. Reeves received it, "$50 per month up to and until J. J. Reeves demanded of him that he pay him $150 per month" for "permission to manufacture whisky, and to protect him from any prosecution in any state court in Titus county for said offense, and to aid him in escaping from federal enforcement officers while in Titus county," and (2) "further, that on or about February 15, A. D. 1923, while the said J. J. Reeves was the duly elected and qualified sheriff of Titus county, Tex., the said J. J. Reeves sold to Ed. Milner in Titus county, Tex., a complete outfit for the manufacture of whisky, composed of a copper pot, worm flake stand, thump key, and other parts that make up a still, and necessarily used in the manufacturing of whisky, for and in consideration of a Dodge touring car that the said Ed. Milner at the time had an equity in, the said J. J. Reeves knowing at the time that the still so sold could be used and was bought by the said Ed. Milner to be used for the purpose of manufacturing whisky, and the said J. J. Reeves agreeing at the time of the sale that he would protect the said Ed. Milner from any criminal prosecution for manufacturing whisky; that the said J. J. Reeves caused said still and all parts thereof to be transported from the county jail in Mt. Pleasant, Titus county, Tex., to the home of said Ed. Milner, 19 miles from Mt. Pleasant; that said still had theretofore been captured by the said J. J. Reeves, or some officer, while making raids for said purposes, and was being stored at the time of said sale and transportation to Ed. Milner in the county jail as contraband property, same having been used for the unlawful manufacture of whisky;" and (3) "further, that J. J. Reeves, on or about June 15, A. D. 1923, while armed with his pistol, which was exposed and could be seen seriously threatened to take the life of Ed. Milner, who was a witness summoned to testify before the grand jury; then in session, if he told the said grand jury anything on him or testified before said grand jury as to any violations of the law of which he knew that the said J. J. Reeves was guilty of;" and (4)
(5) That J. J. Reeves, while sheriff of Titus county, demanded pay from Newt Jernigan for protecting him from prosecution, and for failing to arrest him for violation of law in unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor.
(6) That J. J. Reeves, while sheriff of Titus county, and "during both terms of the said office, conspired with the above-named persons [Arthur Tigert, Clem Gray, Ed. Milner, and Newt Jernigan] to violate the prohibition laws, and aided and encouraged them to violate said law, and willfully and corruptly failed, refused, and neglected to perform his official duty enjoined upon him by law as such sheriff in the enforcement of said law, and knowingly and willfully acted in furtherance of the object of said conspiracy, using the office of sheriff to carry out the object of said conspiracy."
The appellant answered by specially demurring to each alleged ground of misconduct, and by general denial.
After hearing the evidence the court submitted the case to the jury on a charge which, after setting out the averments of misconduct stated in the petition and the appellant's denial thereof, instructed the jury as follows:
The jury stated in their verdict that the following alleged charges or acts of official misconduct were "sustained by the evidence," viz.: Charges as set out above in numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 — but that charge No. 5 set out above was "not sustained by the evidence." Upon the verdict the court entered judgment removing appellant from the office of sheriff of Titus county. The evidence in the record amply supports and warrants the verdict of the jury.
It was pleaded, and it was admitted in the trial to be a fact, that appellant was elected sheriff of Titus county in November, 1920, duly qualifying on December 1, 1920, and again in November, 1922, duly qualifying as his own successor on January 8, 1923. The witness G. C. Gray testified, as material to state:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State, on Inf. of McKittrick v. Williams
... ... J., sec. 16, p. 1221; State v ... Yager, 157 S.W. 557, 250 Mo. 388; State v ... Reichman, 135 Tenn. 653, 188 S.W. 232; State v ... Martin, 87 Kan. 817, 126 P. 1080; Barbee v ... McMurphy, 149 Va. 406, 141 S.W. 237; State v ... Teeters, 112 Kan. 70, 209 P. 818; Reeves v ... Texas, 258 S.W. 577; State v. Dyson, 106 Neb ... 277, 183 N.W. 298; Freas v. State, 109 Okla. 205, ... 235 P. 227; Holliday v. Fields, 210 Ky. 179, 275 ... S.W. 642; In re Sulzman, 125 Ohio St. 594, 183 N.E ... 531; Mays v. Robertson, 172 Ark. 279, 288 S.W. 382; ... Sec ... ...
-
State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Williams, 36718.
...87 Kan. 817, 126 Pac. 1080; Barbee v. McMurphy, 149 Va. 406, 141 S.W. 237; State v. Teeters, 112 Kan. 70, 209 Pac. 818; Reeves v. Texas, 258 S.W. 577; State v. Dyson, 106 Neb. 277, 183 N.W. 298; Freas v. State, 109 Okla. 205, 235 Pac. 227; Holliday v. Fields, 210 Ky. 179, 275 S.W. 642; In r......
-
Huntress v. State
...Co. v. State (Tex.Civ.App.) 81 S.W.(2d) 165; article 5986, R.S. 1925; Reeves v. State, 114 Tex. 296, 267 S.W. 666; Reeves v. State (Tex.Civ.App.) 258 S.W. 577; Flatan v. State, 56 Tex. 93, It is our opinion that none of defendant's exceptions or objections to the charge of the trial court a......
-
In re Bazan
...first day of his present term. My view, however, has not carried the day with this Court historically. We held eighty-four years ago in Reeves v. State, a state-initiated quo warranto action, that in a removal proceeding targeting an official who had been reelected, the phrase "prior to his......