Case ID: sw_280/html/0585-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HENSON v. STATE.
    (No. 9723.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 10, 1926.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;l086(2) — On failure of record to show transfer of prosecution for violation of election laws from district court to county court, conviction in county court will be reversed and remanded.
    Where record failed to show transfer of prosecution on indictment for violation of election laws to county court, conviction in latter court will be reversed and remanded on appeal.
    2. Criminal law 1086(2) — Showing of jurisdiction of trial court held riecessary to give court of Criminal Appeals jurisdiction.
    A showing of jurisdiction in trial court is necessary to give Court of Criminal Appeals cognizance of case on appeal.
    Appeal from Wilson County Court; C. B. Stevenson, Judge.
    John Henson was convicted of violating the election laws, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded, with instructions.
    C. A. Davies, of San Antonio, and Walter B. Stout and T. P. Morris, both of 'Stockdale, .for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

This appeal is from conviction in the county court of Wilson county for violation of the election laws, with punishment fixed at a fine of $200.

We are met at the threshold of our consideration of this case by a jurisdictional question. The prosecution is upon indictment, which makes necessary the conclusion that same resulted from a grand jury investigation, and to have validity it must have been returned into the district court and been transferred by an order duly made by the judge of the district court to the county court. The record herein shows no transfer from any district court to the county court of Wilson county. Without such transfer the county court has no jurisdiction. The showing of jurisdiction is a necessity, without which this court cannot take cognizance of the case. Richardson v. State, 122 S. W. 560, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 285; Harris v. State, 121 S. W. 1116, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 84; Harper v. State, 207 S. W. 96, 84 Tex. Cr. R. 845.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded, with- instructions to the county court of Wilson county that, if no order appears to have been made transferring said case to said county court, this prosecution will be dismissed.