The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1883-06-28

itation is necessarily implied TO an
extent. | do not queStio
the doctrine that Limitation
upon the power of the legi latur
may sometimes be implied, but
court should never resort to this mod
of restricting the powers of a co-ordi
nate department of the government
except in the clearest and most I'm
questionable case of conflict with the
intent of the trainers of the organi,
law. a slight implication of tn,
want of power in the legislature tt
enact the law in question is not suffi
Gent to warrant court in holding
the law to be void, but the implica
tiOn should be so clear, strong and
manifest as to place it beyond any
reasonable doubt that the power has
been denied. "A reasonable doubt
must be solved in favor of the legis-
lative action, and the act sustained,
| Cooley on Const. Linz, ct seq, and
cases there cited) Entertaining, as
do. a strong doubt, and believing
that doubt to be a reasonable one, Of
the correctness of the conclusion ar
rived at by a majority of the court, /
must express my dissent to the same.
l have diligently and with care ex-
amlned every accessible authority
bearing upon the questions discussed
so ably by Presiding Judge White,
and with the other members of the
court upon the principal issue, but
the investigation which have made
has led me not only to doubt the cor
rectneSs of the opinion of the court,
tut the concluSio that the law in
question is not unconstitutional.
[ think. however that the civil stat
ute upon the subject of local option
and article 378 of the penal code are in
pari materia and must be construed
together, and that constituting these
statutes together, makes it evident
that pure, simple gift of intoXica-
the meaning of the law, but to con-
stitute a gift an offense it must have
been made with the purpose of evad-
ing the law.
l think the information in this case
is fatally defective, because it charges
no offence against the law. 1t does
not charge that the defendant gave
away the Intoxicating liquor with
the purpose of evading the law. Or.
S., article 3239) Wilson, j.
Affirmed on certlficate-H. & r. C.
railroad company VS.. Callahan; from
Falls county.
Packer VS.. Baggett, from Bell coun-
ty, was submitted on motion to set
aside affirmance on certificate.
Siles G. Scarborough VS.. State, from
Eastland county. Affirmed. Bigamy,
sentence six months.
Cartwright and Nash VS.. State, from
Bastrop county, Reversed and re-
Hurt, j.
Tumley Bros. VS., Weiss and Triggs,
from Williamson county. Motion for
overruled.
Cage & Parks VS.. State, from Erath |
county. Affirmed. Scire facias case.
Felix Garcia VS.. state; from BeXar
county. Affirmed. Theft. Peniten=
tiary.
Juan hernandez VS.. state; fIVim
BeXar county. Affirmed. Peniten-
tiary case.
G. Basco VS.. state; from Guadalupe |
county. Affirmed. Penitentiary case. |
Z. S. Nolan VS.. state; from Medina |
county. Reversed and remanded.-I
Wilson, j.
Texas and Pacific railroad company |
VS.. Tolbert ct al; from Grayson |
county. Affirmed.
Tim Mcdonald VS.. the state, from
Wise county. Affirmed and sentence |
from two to five years in
the penitentiary according to verdict. |
Mistake was made in filling in the |
period of sentence.
Viceate Cooley VS. state, from At
ascosa. Submitted on brief for the
state.
Jim Houson VS.. state. Affirmed. |
sentence.
Retey Hogan VS.. state. Affirmed.
sentence.
Daniel Bowling VS.. state, from
county. Affirmed. Pen
itentiary case.
Abe Woods VS.. state, from Frio. |
on brief for state and oral |
for both parties.
Thomas Bhawlow VS.. state, from |
Frio. Submitted on brief for the |
state