State v. Jones

• Decision Date: 01 January 1857
• Parties: THE STATE v. A. C. JONES.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

18 Tex. 874

THE STATE

v.A. C. JONES.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1857.

In criminal prosecutions for misdemeanors, where the punishment consists in a fine, the case may be submitted to the court upon an agreement of facts, same as in civil cases.

An indictment will not lie against the overseer of a road, for failing to keep the road in repair within the limits of an incorporated town, the charter of which gives the town authorities power to lay out and improve streets and alleys, where there is an organization under the charter; for the reason that in such case the county court has no jurisdiction over the subject of highways within such incorporated town.

Appeal from Goliad. Tried below before the Hon. James Webb.

Indictment of appellee, as overseer of a road, for failing to keep the road in repair. Exception on the ground that the road was one of the streets of the town of Goliad, and was not under the jurisdiction of the county court. Agreement as follows:

It is agreed in this case, that the town council of the town of Goliad, in laying off the town proper of Goliad, in the year A. D. 1847, surveyed and located a certain street called Fannin street, extending not only through said town proper, but also, to the eastern boundary of the town tract of Goliad, which said street then formed, and yet forms, a part of the survey and plan of the town of Goliad, as delineated on the recorded map of said town.

It is further agreed, that in 1853, a board of viewers, duly appointed by the county court of said county, for that purpose, surveyed and located a road from said town proper, to the eastern boundary of Goliad county, which, as reported by said board, commenced on said Fannin street, at a point opposite the public square in the town proper, and followed said street to the eastern boundary of the town tract, and from thence continued to the eastern boundary of the county of Goliad, there intersecting a road running westward to that point from the town of Victoria, in Victoria county.

It is further agreed that this road, duly reported by said board of viewers, was all embraced within, and designated and known by said county court as “road precinct number seven,” and that said county court, from that time, continued to exercise jurisdiction over said precinct and road by the appointment of overseers therefor, the designation of hands liable to do duty thereon, and having said road so kept in repair, always styling it “road precinct number seven,” until the year 1855, when the county court divided said precinct, and constituted and designated that part of said road embraced between the aforesaid beginning point in the town proper and the eastern boundary of the town tract, as “road precinct number seven,” by which name and number it has since been known, to the present time, by the county court, though commonly called “the Victoria road;” and that during the year 1855, the county court exercised the same jurisdiction as previously over this part of the road lastly named, as constituting “precinct number seven.”

It is further agreed that the county court of said county, at its February term, 1856, appointed the defendant A. C. Jones, overseer of “road precinct number seven,” duly designating to him the boundaries of said precinct, and designating the road hands therein, in the manner shown by the appointment herewith filed as part hereof, which said appointment said defendant never objected to accepting.

It is further agreed, that the whole of said road, comprising “road precinct number seven,” as lastly numbered and designated by the county court, lies within the limits of the town tract of the town of Goliad.

It is further agreed that said defendant has not complied with the duties of the appointment as said overseer, and has not caused any work to be done on said road, on account of the doubt as to whether the county court or town council had jurisdiction or control over the subject.

It is further agreed that said defendant, as overseer aforesaid, has permitted and suffered the particular places stated in said indictment, to remain unbridged, unrepaired, and almost impassable, as charged in said indictment, and for the space of time therein charged.

It is further agreed, that since the aforesaid year 1847, there has been in the town of Goliad, a duly constituted and acting town council, which said council had been performing the duties incumbent upon them by virtue of the act of incorporation of said town.

This agreement is made to enable the court to determine the question raised by the exceptions, whether the county court or the town council had jurisdiction over the subject. (Signed by the district attorney and the attorney for the defendant.)

Opinion delivered by the judge of the court below, and incorporated in the transcript:

The exceptions assume that the defendant is not charged with any offense for which he can be punished under the law.

To consider the indictment simply upon the allegations contained in it, it is manifest that an offense is charged which is punishable, but it is said that on the facts of the case, when the law is applied to them, it will be seen that the defendant has committed no offense, and that the indictment cannot be sustained.

A demurrer or exception is not the proper mode of presenting matters of fact which do not appear upon the face of the pleadings demurred or excepted to, but as the parties have agreed upon the facts, and only disagree as to the construction of the law to be applied to them, and as they are desirous that the court shall decide the legal questions, which will necessarily arise in the case at some stage of its proceedings, without the necessity of going into an expensive and protracted jury trial, they will be considered upon the exceptions and facts agreed upon, as though those facts did appear upon the face of the indictment, or had been found by a special verdict.

The main, and indeed only essential question presented is one of a conflict of jurisdiction between the county court of Goliad county, and the town council of the town of Goliad, in respect to the authority of these two bodies over the roads, streets and thoroughfares, which run through and are within the incorporated limits of the town.

There is no doubt that a general jurisdiction has been given by law to the county courts to lay out, establish and keep in repair, in their respective counties, such roads, or public highways, as may be necessary for the travel and transportation of the products and commerce of the county, and consequently, the county court of Goliad county possessed the right and power to establish the road now in controversy, unless that power has been taken away, or rendered inoperative by other...