The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-11-02

OF appeals from cases piVsecutsu III tno
name Of cities in city courts, sometimes
affirming and sometimes reversing them.
but never questioning the right OF the cit
les TO SO prosecute them. Such cases are
tho numerous to need to be specifically
mentioned here. This court has expressly
held that such cases can be prosecuted in
the name OF cities.
FIX parte Frielani. decided Ly this court
October 26, 1897.
Elk parte Estes, decided By Judge David
son at Dallas in July. 1897.
Article IL. section 5 Of the constitution
Of Texas authorizes the legislature to grant
special charters to cities having OYER TO-
900 inhabitants.
The supreme court Of Texas In City Of
Dallas VS.. Western Electric Co., 80 Texas,
p. 243. says: "These charters are to be
considered as whole within themselves
without reference to any other law The
city charter of the city Of I.a.las author
ICES the city of Dallas to prohibit taining
and exhibiting games and rass such o'di-
nances as may be necessary to carry sucn
power into effect. Dallas City Charter,
Secs. 1913 and 1919
This power is usually given to cities
| throughout the United States. The fact
| that the legislature nas prohibited the
vice OF gambling In a general law docs not
prevent the city Of Dallas from rroh'titin
| it by an ordinance. passed under cypress
authority of its city charter, and the Eal-
las city charter was enacted by the legis-
lature subsequent to the time the general
law was passed. The decisions Of mis-
| court bear out this view. (See ex parte
Bolland, IL App, p. 1851
Elk parte Wilson. ID App, p. 5s2.
| Elk parte oliver, App, II. Jas.
| The supreme court Of ,Texas holds the
| same opinion.
See Bigby vs.. Tyler, "A Texas. p. S5l.
| That great jurist. Judge Cooley, says in
his work on constitutional limitations. 9Th
edition, page 2S9, in speaking of city char
| tiers. 1.-THE charter may exclude the gen.
| eral law and allow the corporation TO rass
| local laws at its discretion which may diff
| fer from the rule in force else where. But
| in these cases the control of the State is
not excluded II the legislatures after
| wards see fit to exercise II. But the State
law and by law may both stand together
| II not inconsistent This language has
been cited with approval by this court.
1t is supported by the following eminent
| authority;
City Of st. Louis vs.. Bentz, Ii Mo
p. 81.
CITY of St, Louis vs. cafferata. "a No.
p. "a.
Rogers VS.. Jones, 1 wend.. p. eel, tc
which attention is specially called; also
1 y.
Mayor of Mobile VS.. Allaire, IA Ala
p. 400.
Elk Point VS.. Vaughan, l Dak., .. 113.
People VS.. Hanrahon, rs Mich, p. Gil.
The constitution does not prohibit the
exercise OF this power by the city of Dali
las. and who Will doubt the wisdom of the
legislature in giving 1t TO the city? 1t IL
submitted that the welfare Of the city i:
more directly affected by this vice thar
nj q rre a. Mt Ia Ie
court will take judicial iotice OF a "ac
so well known as that extensive gsrablinf
seldom prevails except in cities. 1t is fur.
Their submitted that there is no reason
that this codrt should at this time chang,
its uniform construction Of the constitution
The charge against Rautch, decided II
Bautch We. City OF Galveston, CT App D
1872, was ms important as the one agains
Fagg in this and in that case, on page 346
the court says there is nothing in the con.
stitution against the doctrine we here in.
woke. The legislature Is presumed to hav,
passed the Dallas city charter in the ligh
of the former decisions of this court. Th,
supreme court Of the State of Texas in tn,
case of Giddings vs.. San Antonio, Al Texas
p. 557, says: while 1t is of the highes
Importance that tho courts should be opei
at all times for the assertion of rights tina
are believed to be we'll founded. 1t woult
be unfortunate that 1T should be though
practicable on a doubtful question to cas-
lily procure a change OF decision in tn
! members who might from time TO tim
compose the supreme court
The position of the city OF Dallas in tl1
care is supported by an unbroken line o
! legislative and judicial construction. Tha
this construction is entitled 10 great weigh
has been frequently stated by all court
and authorities. We refer the court bow
; ever, specially to the case of State ex rel
Georgln VS.. McAllister in IS Texas. AS Il
, the power of the legislature to grant +
, cities the right to inprscn as O punish
ment for offenses, We appeal 10 the sam
, constitution. and call the courts attention
i to article 46f OF the Revised Statutes O
| Texas. which was originally enacted Il
1870, before the present constitution wa
ndopted, and has been carried forward Il
the two Revised Statutes adopted sine
; then. This section expressly authorize
: cities under 10000 inhabitants to punis
! offenders by Imprisonment
: In answer to the applicants contention
that Imprisonment IN the city jail is no
the same punishment as In the county jai
: we submit that as to his other claims tn
| point is settled against both by the stat
2 u.es of Texas and the decisions OF thi
. court
, Article "a, Criminal Code Of Texas, says
? The word jail means any place OF con
finernent used for OBTAINING prisoners"
To the same effect is WEIGH vs. State
s 20 App. p. $50; certainly the city Jail !
; such place. and county Jail is that an
r nothing more. II is further certain fror
: the context OF the Dallas city charter tina
I.it was intended that prisoners of the cit
g should be confined in the city Jail. Use
r Dallas City Charter, Sec. u.s., special az
S of Twenty-fifth legislature, regular SEES
4 sion.)
e The whole defense of the applicant
: technical and unsupported by the. Texa
$ authorities. Respectfully submitted
@ A. p. Wozencraft and r. A. Work
L Attorneys for Respondent, J. C. Arnol'
: Cut and beaten TO Death.
Il Sherman, Texas, November IA terribl
g cutting affair occurred al Iuella TIL