Case ID: sw2d_66/html/0695-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex parte DAY.
    No. 16359.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 13, 1933.
    See, also, 66 S.W.(2d) 695.
    ■ Polk Shelton and Henry Brooks, both of Austin, for appellant.
    Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin. for the State.
   LATTIMORE, Judge.

Applicant presents an original application for a writ of habeas corpus to this court asking discharge from custody of the constable of precinct No. 3 of Travis county, because of the unconstitutionality of subdivision 23 of art 704Y, Rev. St. 1925, as amended by section 1 of chapter 212, Acts of Regular Session of 42d Legislature, as amended by section 11a of House Bill 154, being chapter T62, Acts of Regular Session 6f 43d Legis.-lature (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 7047, subd. 23). An inspection of the affidavit to the complaint upon which applicant bases his illegal arrest, discloses the fact It is signed by one J. A. Woody, and apparent!y sworn to. and subscribed before one T. E. Johnson, justice of the peace of precinct No. 3 of Travis county,' Tex. Neither the affidavit nor the jurat bear any date. They are fatally defective,' and cannot furnish any proper • basis for an arrest, and certainly none for an application for a writ of habeas corpus. We might observe that in Éx parte Turner, 55 S.W.(2d) 833, this court held that the first. statute referred to in applicant’s application, to wit, that contained in section 1 of chapter 212, Acts of Regular Session of '42d Legislature (amending Rev. St. 1925, art. 7047; subd. 23), was unconstitutional. If' the matter was properly before us for consideration, we would call attention to the further fact that the caption of House Bill' 154¡ which is chapter 162, Acts of Regular Session of 43d Legislature, contains nothing in any way relating to or comprehending the enactment' of. what is section 11a of said chapter (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 7047, subd. 23). The caption Sets’: but and comprehends the enactment of certain statutes. Section 11a is manifestly an amendment to a statute not referred to or comprehended, by the caption. We' would further observe, however, that the question of the constitutionality of the law herein attacked seems to be a moot question inasmuch as at the Hirst Called Session of the 43d Legislature, an original act was passed, which, if valid, regulates and controls' the occupation tax upon the very matters that are embraced in section 11a, supra, which latter act would appear to supersede prior acts and to be the existing law on the subject

The application for the writ of habeas corpus will be dismissed at the cost of the applicant.