The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-02-28

Texas. 1879, whore another act Of the
| legislature was held Unconstitutional.
50, II the court In the Leach case ex-
pressed any apprehension OF the fact thut
me legislature might abuse It's power In
! passing unconstitutional acts, that fear =,
say the least OF IT. Il fully Justified by the
uccisioas OF all the ccurts OF last resort in
this State And more than that by tho
same decisions II can be maintained that
that fear had natured Into an actual real-
isation prior to the Leach decision. And
u IL be correct, as was said In Har Is
county vs. Stewart. that the legislature
may destroy the judicial system of this
state, then Il would be useless TO urge the
proposition that the appellate Jurisdiction
OF this court could cure those evils II Is
also asserted 10 Harris county VS.. Stewart,
mat II the Leach case is correct It won 4
seriously AFFECT the administration OF the
civii laws Of the State. of which this court
has final jurisdiction, We do not 20
understand the LAW How this could affect
the jurisdiction of the sup, eme court Is
not stated Ia that opinion. IL the lesisln-
ture has conferred or can confer civil juriS-
uiction upoa these city courts OF matters
outside and beyond their rwn munic,pai
auairs, whether exclusive OF or concurrent
with State courts. IL IL certain that such
jurisdiction could be exercised by the State
courts II not conferred upon tho corpur-
alton COURTS and IL the supreme court
could obtain jurisdiction of 1t from the
city court by reason OF its lodgmcnt In the
corporation courts. 1t certainly would not
oe deprived OF such jurisdiction. IL the
same jurisdiction Is lodged In the Slate
court 80 Tar as the supreme courts jurls- 4
dition is concerned we d, not understand
now the Leach case has aay eject. for
certainly that court would not hold that
Decause these ciyil matters were tried In
the State court and not in the COR q IN Inn
sis.tx~ - 4
appellate jurisdiction. We are not deed. |
ing the supreme courts appellate iurs- |
uietion over the trial courts. but have baen |
under the impression that such jurlsliStion |
was limited to writs OF error from The
courts Of civil appeals
So. In View OF the Whale matter wa bnys !
seen no reason to change our Views us OK
pressed IN Leach VS., State, cv parte Knox
ana OK parte Fagg, supra, and upon fur
tfef examination Of tire questions involved
IN those cases we are sim or tho same !
opm0n We are also of the opinion tbnt /
corporation courts can not be invested with
Jurisdiction exclusive OF or concurrent WITH I
state courts TO try violations of our n,nai
laws, nor can the legislature invest u,fninf
fai corporations with power 10 susnand
any penal law OF the State within tho limits |
OIL s'ich corporatioa; aud further, that cor
pofntion courts are only authorized In this
Ss ~. ~ Incidental TO municipal charters.
can only be brought into existence nndcr
such charters; that such charters ate not
and can not be created under article ar
our state constitution, and that they can
not form part of the judicial power a,
'he state, provided for nv said article. hut
are Incidental only TO corporate. charters
under article II OF said constitution.
he remaining questiors. wo think ,rA
without merit and are not therefore dis
sessed. Tho Judgment is affirmed. --Dayid-
'on. Judge. ~ {
:, : agree TO the result reached; TIM Is, that
iiction 10 try said case / mo nv
Ion, Judge
Hurt. presiding judge. dissen,s
fiied February %. 1895 W. 4. Hudson
Jerk ~ '"usou' !