Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-08-28
THE LAWYERS OPINION.
WHAT THEY SAY REGARDING
JUDGE HURTS DECISION.
Those Who VIII Talk Express a Belief
the Decision VIII Stand-What Attor-
ney Gillespie Says About It

The decision of Judge Hurst which gives
to the city exclusive jurisdiction in cases
where the Sunday law is violated was a
matter of much comment yester-
day. Notwithstanding the decision
two saloon men were before
Justice NcClung yesterday morning to
answer the charge of selling liquor on Sun
day. Prosecuting Attorney Gillespie was
seen by GAZETTE reporter yesterday and
asked what steps he would take in the mat
ter he replied: 81 shall proceed the same
as if Judge Hurt had rendered
no decision, and go right ahead with the
saloon cases till the question of jurisdiction
IS settled finally by the court of appeals.
The decision OF Judge Hurt in chambers is
by no means final, but only gives the man
involved his release. In conversa-
ton with Judge Beclham to-day he
informed me that he would instruct the
grand jury to indict all saloon men selling
liquor on Sunday until the question of
jurisdiction had been decided by the court
of appeals to be vested solely in the city [
am looking up the case and Shall
endeavor to convince the other members
of the court that my position in the matter
is right
a number of the leading lawyers of the
city were called upon and their opinion
solicited concerning the decision. The ma
Jorlty declined to be interviewed on the
ground of not having looked into the ques-
ton. Attorney Hyde Jenninge was seen
and said:
While l have not given the question any
study, | feel certain that Judge Hurts
opinion is correct, and should hesitate be-
fore demurring from it. He had the repu-
tation, before going on the bench, of being
the finest criminal lawyer in the state, and
his decisions in criminal matters have al
ways carried weight with them
John d. Templeton was seen and said:
81 am not in the criminal practice and con-
sequently am not conversant with points
seems to me, in view of the facts
in the case that Judge Hurts decis-
ion is along the right line, and
besides the opinions of Judge Hurt
in criminal questions are seldom questioned.
l think it will be found that his decision in
chambers will stand before the court of ap-
pcals and be concurred in by his associates. ;,
Thcs. f. West said: Judge Hurts de-
cision is undoubtedly correct. Under the
new charter which the legislature
granted to the city of Fort Worth the
city was given exclusive Jurisdiction over
all misdemeanor cases, and this of course
denies any concurrent jurisdiction on the
part of the county. There is no question
about the legality of the charter granted
the city by the legislature, and in
the premises Judge Hurt could render no
other decision, and it will, think, be con-
CURED in by his associates"
B. j. Houston: Il am not in the practice
of criminal law, and have given the ques-
ton you speak of no serious thought 1
read Judge Hurts opinion, and, consider
ing his known ability as a Judge
of criminal law, would think his
decision in the matter a correct one. There
has been some talk of the charter which
the legislature granted the city not being
constitutional, and, of course, the present
opinion in this case hinges on the constitu-
tionality of the new charter of the city. AS
to this l am not prepared to give an
opinion