Case ID: tex-ct-app_21/html/0331-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "White, Presiding Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Nos. 3994 and 3995.]
    August Vogt v. The State.
    Practice—Cases Stated.—In each of these two cases, the defendant prosecuted to the county court an appeal from conviction in the justice’s court for a violation of the Sunday law. The State moved the county court to dismiss the appeals because of improperly certified transcripts from the justice’s court. These motions were met by motions of the defendant for certiorari to bring up perfect records. The county court overruled the defendant’s motions and dismissed the appeals. Held, error. The motions of the State should have been overruled, and the certioraris awarded,
    Appeal from the County Court of Jack. Tried below before the Hon. H. P. Jones, County Judge.
    A fine of ten dollars in each case was assessed against the appellant, upon his conviction for performing labor on Sunday.
    The opinion states the cases.
    No brief for the appellant has reached the Reporters.
    
      J. H. Burts, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
    Opinion delivered May 15, 1886.
   White, Presiding Judge.

Both these cases were prosecutions instituted on complaint and information in a justice’s court, charging appellant with laboring on Sunday, in violation of Article 183, Penal Code. Judgment was rendered in the justice’s court finding defendant guilty, and imposing a fine upon him. Appeal was taken to the county court. Motion was there made by the county attorney to dismiss the appeal for want of a properly certified transcript from the justice’s court. Appellant made a counter motion for a writ of certiorari to the justice, to send up a more perfect and complete transcript. The motion for certiorari was overruled, and the motion to dismiss was sustained, and the appeal dismissed. These judgments were erroneous. The writ of certiorari should have been granted. The questions being identical in both these cases, both judgments are reversed and both causes remanded for new trials. .

Reversed and remanded.