Reeves v. State, (No. 2846.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
Writing for the CourtLevy
Citation258 S.W. 577
PartiesREEVES v. STATE.
Decision Date25 January 1924
Docket Number(No. 2846.)&lt;SMALL&gt;&lt;SUP&gt;*&lt;/SUP&gt;&lt;/SMALL&gt;

Page 577

258 S.W. 577
REEVES
v.
STATE.
(No. 2846.)*
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.
January 25, 1924.
Rehearing Denied February 7, 1924.

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 "the said J. J. Reeves, the duly elected, qualified and acting sheriff of Titus county, Tex., in his office in the courthouse in the town of Mt. Pleasant, Titus county, Tex., agreed with Arthur Tigert that for the payment to him by Arthur Tigert, which was done, of $50 per month, payable monthly, that the said Arthur Tigert might and could continue, which he did, to manufacture in Titus county spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors capable of producing intoxication, in violation of the laws of Texas, and to protect the said Arthur Tigert from any criminal prosecution in the state courts in said county, and to inform him of the presence of any federal enforcement officers in the said county, and to notify him of any prospective raids or attempts on the part of enforcement officers to catch the said Arthur Tigert in the manufacture of said liquor. * * * And the said J. J. Reeves fully carried out his agreement, as set out, in violation of his oath of office and in violation of the law of the state of Texas."

(2) That J. J. Reeves, while sheriff of Titus

Page 578

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) "that during both terms of office, and up to the time shortly before the filing of this petition [which was June, 1923] the said J. J. Reeves talked to the said Ed. Milner and promised to protect him from criminal prosecutions for violating the liquor laws of Texas, in the unlawful manufacture, sale, and transportation of liquor, and encouraged the said Ed. Milner to violate such laws, receiving from said Ed. Milner pay therefor. * * * All of which was knowingly and willfully done as sheriff, in violation of his oath of office and in violation of the laws of the state of Texas."

(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:

"You are instructed that any sheriff in this state may be removed from office for official misconduct, which is defined to be any unlawful behavior in the relation to the duties of his office, and any willful or corrupt failure, refusal or neglect to perform any duty enjoined on him by law. In this case the burden is on the state of Texas to show the alleged official misconduct upon the part of John J. Reeves by a preponderance of the evidence. You will not return a general verdict, but will state in your verdict whether or not the cause or causes for removal set forth in the petition are true, and you will state in your verdict which charge or charges are sustained by the evidence, if any, and which charge or charges are not sustained by the evidence, if any. You are the exclusive judges of the facts proved and of the credibility of the witnesses and of the weight to be given to the testimony."

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

Page 579

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:

"I was appointed deputy sheriff on January 1, 1921, and I served as deputy sheriff until I turned in my commission in March, 1921. During the time I was deputy sheriff under Mr. Reeves there was whisky captured by the sheriff's department as illegally distilled whisky. I was in some raids with Mr. Reeves, and helped to capture whisky. When we captured whisky we brought it to the jail in Mt. Pleasant. I think we put some of the whisky up stairs in the jail, and some of it down stairs. The whisky that we got in possession that way was sold. I sold the biggest part of it myself to the sheriff, right here in Mt. Pleasant. When the sheriff first went into office he said that people...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Williams, No. 36718.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 9, 1940
    ...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, No. 9855.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • November 20, 1935
    ...81 S.W.(2d) 165; article 5986, R.S. 1925; Reeves v. State, 114 Tex. 296, 267 S.W. Page 648 666; 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 are well taken, and ......
  • In re Bazan, No. 06-0952.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • March 28, 2008
    ...3. 774 S.W.2d 661 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam). 4. 114 Tex. 296, 267 S.W. 666, 667, 669 (1924). 5. Id. at 669. 6. Id. at 667; Reeves v. State, 258 S.W. 577, 577-78 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1924), rev'd, 114 Tex. 296, 267 S.W. 7. Reeves, 267 S.W. at 667, 669. 8. Id. at 669. 9. Id. 10. Id. 11. Tal......
  • Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. Greer, No. 6394.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • January 20, 1949
    ...Henderson v. State, 53 Tex.Cr. R. 533, 111 S.W. 736; Glazener v. State, 117 Tex.Cr.R. 605, 36 S.W.2d 752; Reeves v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 258 S.W. 577. Throughout her testimony the wife stated that she plead guilty to murder without malice; her testimony stands alone without corroboration or......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Williams, No. 36718.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 9, 1940
    ...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, No. 9855.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • November 20, 1935
    ...81 S.W.(2d) 165; article 5986, R.S. 1925; Reeves v. State, 114 Tex. 296, 267 S.W. Page 648 666; 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 are well taken, and ......
  • In re Bazan, No. 06-0952.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • March 28, 2008
    ...3. 774 S.W.2d 661 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam). 4. 114 Tex. 296, 267 S.W. 666, 667, 669 (1924). 5. Id. at 669. 6. Id. at 667; Reeves v. State, 258 S.W. 577, 577-78 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1924), rev'd, 114 Tex. 296, 267 S.W. 7. Reeves, 267 S.W. at 667, 669. 8. Id. at 669. 9. Id. 10. Id. 11. Tal......
  • Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. Greer, No. 6394.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • January 20, 1949
    ...Henderson v. State, 53 Tex.Cr. R. 533, 111 S.W. 736; Glazener v. State, 117 Tex.Cr.R. 605, 36 S.W.2d 752; Reeves v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 258 S.W. 577. Throughout her testimony the wife stated that she plead guilty to murder without malice; her testimony stands alone without corroboration or......
  • 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