Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-08-29
The Interest in the Sunday Law
Question Getting Torrid.
MORE HABEAS CORPUS CASES.
Three Were Released by Judge Hurt Yes
terday-There's Lively Times Ahead.
Judge Harris Ruling-The Dis
trict Judges Interested.


going right along in the even tenor OF his
way, prosecuting the cases before the JUS
tees. Yesterday morning Judge Hurt IN
chambers decided the cases of Ben McCul-
Tough, Charles Graham and Clint Terry,
charged with violations of the law and
fined by Justice McClung the preceding
afternoon. In his remarks upon the case
Judge Hurt delivered himself of some hot
shot, and report says prospects were immi-
nent for pitched battle between some of
the attorneys.
During conversation Judge Hurt re-
marked that he had nothing to do from
now till October except to go fishing and
turn the men loose as fast as they We're
fined, and he had great mind to stay and
see 1t out; that he proposed to make the
county authorities respect his decisions.
The lawyers are divided on the matter, the
criminal lawyers as rule, with the posi-
bic exception of Byron G. johnson, siding
with Judge Hurt, while other lawyers are
inclined to take the opposite view of the
matter.
1t is said that both Judge Beckham and
Judge Stedman have expressed themselves
as holding the decision of Judge Hurt as of
no avail until concurred in by the other
members of the court of appeals bench, and
that Judge Beckham has already announced
that he will instruct the grand jury to in
dict all saloonkeepers who keep open
between the hours of II D. IN. Saturday and
9 a. m. Sunday and p. N. and midnight
Sunday
In this connection the proceedings in the
county court in the case of the State vs..
Peter StrampSher who kept 4 saloon at
Ginocchio's hotel, is exactly similar to the
present case, and Judge Harris decided the
case and filed his opinion on August 4, and
prior to any action in the cases by Judge
Hurt of the court of appeals. This opin-
ion is a matter of record, and yesterday Il
GAZETTE reporter obtained a copy of the
courts conclusions of law and fact as fol-
lows:
State of Texas VS.. Pete Strampsher; in the
county court, July term, 1891.
Complying with the request of counsel
for the state and the defendant to file my
conclusions of law in writing, will state
that in my opinion that part of section 20 of
the charter of Fort Worth, as amended by
the act of the Twenty-second legislature,
which endeavors to confer exclusive juris-
diction over all violations of the Sunday
laws between the hours of u O'Clock Satur-
day night and 8 o'clock Sunday morning
and between the hours of O'Clock p. m.
Sunday and 12 O'Clock Sunday night, is I'M
constitutional and void, because
l. The said act in endeavoring to confer
exclusive Jurisdiction on the city court is
violative of section 10, article ), of the con-
stitution of 1876, providing that justices of
nal matters of all cases where the penalty
or fine to be imposed by law may not be
more than for S200-of which exclusive
original jurisdiction is not given to the
district or county courts. From this
quoted statement it appears that the iuris-
diction of Justices courts over violations of
the Sunday law, the penalty being under
500, cannot be taken away by the Iegisla-
ture. Neither the district courts nor the
county courts have exclusive originaljuris-
diction'' of Sunday law violations: and
this being so the Justices courts must have
jurisdiction. The only instances in which
the Justices court can be denied jurisdic-
ton in such cases is where the exclusive
original jurisdiction is given to the county
or district courts. 1t cannot be taken away
by giving exclusive original jurisdiction to
city court if the constitution means any,
thing. The positive and unqualified man
date of the constitution is that the Justices
court shall have jurisdiction except in GER
tain specific exceptions And it is not
within the power of the legislature to en-
graft other exceptions on the same. Then
the act must be ineffective and void in so
far as it undertakes to define the Justices |
court of jurisdiction, and the object of the
amendatory act in question being to confer
exclusive jurisdiction on the city court, and
it failing in this on account of the constitp-
tional provision just mentioned, then the |
said clause of the act is void in toto and
cannot effect the jurisdiction of the county
court. That part of the act is void 1t |
is at once apparent that the question here |
considered is entirely different from the I
questions in the ex-parte Wilson in14 app
and ex-parte Corey in IS app.
2. The said clause of the amending act is |
unconstitutional and void because the title |
of said act does not mention that the act has |
any such purpose as to take away the juris- |
dictiOn of the county and Justices courts in |
certain cases, and is in violation of section |
35, article 3, of the constitution of the state |
requiring that no bill shall contain more |
than one subject, which shall be expressed |
in its title. To have made it comply with |
this section of the constitution the title of |
the act should have in some manner indi- |
Gated that its purpose, in part, was to |
change or take away the jurisdiction of the |
Justices and county courts in certain cases. |
3. There is another reason which goes |
not only to the soundness of the act in |
volved in this case, but also questions the |
soundness of the point clsimed by some to |
have been already decided by the court of |
appeals with reference to city courts in |
cities having special charters. The reason |
l now mention is not necessary III the pres
ent case, but | will refer to it anyway, with |
the hope that it will also be presented to |
and and definitely passed upon by the court |
of appeals. 1t is that said amendatory act |
is in conflict with Sec. Sc. Art. 3, of the |
constitution, which says: ''The legislature i
shall not, except as otherwise provided In |
this constitution, pass any local or special |
law regulating the practice or
jurisdiction of courts" etc. The fact that |
a similar inhibition against Incorporating
cities and changing their charters by local |
or special law is not applicable to cities of |
more than 10, 600 inhabitants on account Of Z
an otherwise provided" in Sec 5, Art II,
Of the constitution does not expressly nor
by implication remove the inhibition against
and changing the jurisdiction of
courts by local or special law. If we could |
with reason say that the grant of a special
charter and presumably an increase in gen.
eral municipal power made it absolutely |
necessary that the city, in order to enable
it to exercise its increased powers, should
have an enlarged power or increased au-
tority to enforce the criminal laws of the
state, then we might claim that in such
city the restrictions with reference to
courts, etc, by local or special law, no
longer applies. This would be on the idea
that the right to grant power carries with
it the right also to grant such subordinate
Or incidental powers as are necessary to the
But such necessity for enlarged power to
enforce the criminal laws of the state does
not follow from the grant of special char
ter with plenary municipal powers.
Therefore the legislative restriction
is not removed. There is no otherwise
provided that authorizes a special jurisdic-
ton on one city court that is not granted TO
all. City courts are class of state courts:
made so by comforting on them Jurisdiction
as to state laws. Before and at the time of |
the adoption of the present constitution the