The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-11-02
LAS GAMBLING CASE.
|ty Judae Force Decides IL Favor
Of the City.
OF HABEAs CORPUS SUED OUT.


the rambling houses Of Dallas have
lehtly closed. The police have made
ut raids on the habitues Of the green
md there is not place in the city
rambling 10 carried ON openly
those arrested and fined was Bud
His attorneys appealed the case to
nnty court. Judge Force decided in
Of. the city. Writ of habeas corpus
en- sued out before the court Of Grim
bpeals. The case is now pending be-
Ie hi CHEST court in the State at Tyler
y aroused the interest OF many at
J throughout the State.
fs attorneys make four leading con-
q why their client should be dis
al: /. Because under the consutu-
Texas oil prosecutions must be had
name OF the State and this against
= in the name Of the city OF Dallas.
huse an ordinance can not be au-
"a to be passed by any city inflicting
bnment as punishment for crime. 3.
Ae ordinance is void because an ordi-
||passed by a city inflicttng punish
br d crime when the same crime Is
ID under State law. 4. Because the
4 city charter only authorizes the
inflict the game punishment for
ing games as inflicted by the state
"a the ordinance Furnishes by I'M
hent in the city jsil while the State
kprisons In the county jail.
case has been argued on writ or
corpus at Tyler. The law is to be
y straight test and the appellate court
1 for briefs. The following has been
Tied by the city authorities of Dallas,
kerybody in the town will eagerly
the courts decision:
barte Bud Fagg--In court OF criminal
Is at Tyler, Texas; brief and argu-
3or respondent, j. c. Arnold.
The title of the Dallas city charter
bcient, because a city court is an or
and necessary incident to city.
lis & Cummings VS.. State ex rel.
b, 60 Texas, p. TAI.
lock VS.. Eckles, 90 Texas, p. 793.
N VS.. Railway, so Texas. p. 3ob.
ings VS.. San Antonio, Al Texas. p.
~ Const. Lin, 14c
ID, Nun. Cor. Fourth ed.), 39-427-51
fican and English Enc. Of Law, Vol
q 300. Note 2, and authorities there
authorities are 80 conclusive that
)t thought proper to argue the ques-
J city charter providing that process
y city court shall run in the name
&city, and that prosecutions for VIC
"a - Iii Oh 4 d., 4, r
s|sof the city, is constitutional and
7 GUMENT AND AUTHORITIES.
foregoing principle Of law has beer
~ times announced by courts of the
authority acting under constitu-
kactly similar in this respect to the
btion of Texas, as well as by thi.
Reconstruction OF tho State of lows
Is this provision: "The style OF al
shall be The State OF Iowa. ant
ecutions shall be conducted in thu
ind by the authority of the same
tuition of Iowa. Art. 5, Sec. 81 TIL,
Il of the city of Davenport in terms
zed prosecutions for violations o
{pal ordinances to be instituted IL
me Of the city, and 1t was contend
e this portion Of the charter was II
IA with the above quoted provision
- constitution. But the suprem,
IN the case of Davenport VS.. Bird
-, p. 524 npd871). held otherwise.
In the name OF the cit,
the defendant for violation of al
ce of Appellee nature, Tut TO
under the charter, the city wa
led to punish by a limited fine an,
nment. ~ In giving the opinion o
rt, Miller, j., says; 1T is neces
Y nder the constitution. that al
tions for violation of municipal pc
finances shall be conducted in III
hd by the authority Of the State o
&Dr. In other words. Is that claus
charter OF Davenport, which di
at all suits, actions and prosecu
E instituted commenced and prose
81 the name OF the city OF Daven
NM Conflict with the constitutions
III before referred to? We are @
ZION that it is not. This clause Q
Dtitution occurs in article 5, whic
the judicial department OF tn
SENT. This article vests and de
judicial power OF the State, es
the tenure Of office OF the judge
ines the mode OF their Gle cticn
eir salary and limits the nin,b be
al districts; provides for the cleo
4n attorney general and other mat
taining to the judicia ;.-ci Of tn
mong which is the clause unde
xAtion. From all this II seem
I'M that the requirement that a
IN ions shall be conducted in tb
The State of Iowa and con
es such criminal prosecutions a
44instituted and prosecuted before tn
- which are provided for in thf
449f the constitution under the sta,
the State. 1t is fitting and anprc
nat prosecutions for violations {
"a ninal laws of the State should b
~ Pm In the nsme OF the government
e Is no fitness or propriety in re
$the state to be party to ever
A Dsecution under the police reguls
municipal corporation. Sue
Hction of this article OF the cor
seems to us to be unwarrante,
intended by the trainers of II
Ion. II was held by the supreu
<5 Pennsylvania that the wor
In the twelfth section OF II
{ieie of the constitution OF II
lhich provides that the style
ssess shall be the Commonweal,
yiyanio. vas intended TO refer {
|3& US only as should become ne,
b be issued in the course. of II
~: of that judicial power which
ed end provided for In the a, tic
pnstitution, and forms exclusive
ect matter OF it. On ,he san
We are Of the opinion that Il
Prosecutions" in TIE eighth sc,