The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-02-04

Il
4 case. decided yesterday by the court o.
Q criminal appeals. 1t is said to be the
most Important and far-reaching opinion
: that tribunal has set forth In several years
u In tho case of Bud Fagg. who was con-
= victed In the Dallas city court OF gambling
. and afterward appealed and sued out a
writ of habeas corpus the court discharged
tie relator and held that the city has no
7 authority to try cases defined in the
statNtes.
This is a proceeding on an original habe-
as corpus granted and made returnablo
before this court. The petition alleges that
applicant is Illegally restrained by one j.
e. Arnold, chief OF police Of the city of
Dallas, by virtue OF a certain judgment OF
commitment OF the city court or Dallas.
Inc agreed statement Of facts contains
q copy OF the Judgment and writ of COM
mitment, the complaint in which the APP
plicant was tried. together with copy OF
inc ordinance under which the prosecution
ana conviction was had. Said ordinance
ioiloWs the State law on the subject and
makes II an Offenso against the city OF
Dallas for any person TO keep or exhibit,
Tor the purpose OF gaming, any gaming
table or bank of any Kind or description
whatever, or amy table or bank used Tor
gaming, etc, and dhe punishment imposed
IS a hne of not less than $25 nor more
than 500 and Imprisonment In the city
Jaii Tor not less than ten nor more than
| ninety days, which Is the same amount and
degree MS that provided under the State
law or statute on tho subject which makes
gaming an offenso against the State laws.
ihete was no information filed against de-
iehiant but the complaint on which lie
| was tried Is as follows.
The State of Texas. County of Dallas.
NJ In 1ne
| the Undersigned authority. Il. y. Gates
| VINO, after being duly sworn, deposes and
| says that Bud Fdgg, in the city of Dallas
aud State OF Texas. on October ., 1897,
and before the filing of this complaint,
| did nnlawfully keep and exhibit for the
purpose of gaming gaming table and
bank to-wit: a faro bank contrary to
| ordinances in such eases made and pro-
vided. n T. Gates,
Sworn to and subscribed before II. Il.
Iawhon. city secretary. On the trial the
relator. Fagg, was convicted and his pun |
ishment assessed at fine of S25 and ten
DAYS Imprisonment in the city jail
The contention of the applicant Is that |
said conviction being under an ordinance. |
ana In the city court of Dallas is Illegal |
and void a. Because the statutes of the |
state make the exhibiting of a gaming !,
table for the purpose OF gaming an offense !
against the State, and IL Is .,ot competent |
Il
NY authority by ordinance to supersede |
the State law OH the subject (2) Because |
the city court of Dallas has no authority |
to try offenses against the State law l3) |
ana granting the city court Of Dalns has |
the power to try State cases, 1t must pro. |
coed as a>State court
In tho view we take OF this question Il |
IS not necessary TO discuss the last two
PROPOSITIONS, ginasmuch as tho offense al |
legged against applicant was prosecuted
merely as violation of the city ordinances.
and we are accordingly confronted with
TWO questions: l., Does the charter of
Daiias authorize the city council to pass
an ordnance making said osfense of keep
lng and exhibiting "A gaming table for the
purpose OF gaming an offense against the
olty 2,lt the charter grants this power
Under the constitution and laws of this
state to confer upon the municipality OF
baiias authority 10 make the exhibiting
ana keeping Of gaming table for the nur-
pose of gaming an offense against the city?
we might observe here that section "A
OF the new charter of the city of Dallas,
granted by the Twenty-fifth legislature.
gives the city court OF Dallas Jurisdiction
as follows: Il To try, hear, determine and
punish ali misdemeanors over which the
DALLAS city court now has jurisdiction 2
10 Try, hear, determine and punish all mis- ;
ueiheahofs arising under the provisions of ;
this charter: to have concurrent jurisdic-
ton with the State courts over ali nistle-
meanors against the State laws conirnitted ,
within the city limits, except theft and
those involving official misconduct. and to
nave exclusive jurisdiction OF All disof- !
DERBY houses and female vagrants /"
But as stated, IL Is not necessary TO dis .
cuss this provision with reference u the !
jurisdiction OF the city court OF the State , q
oiIehses. prosecuted as such: and ID does | Z
not become necessary TO discuss the bear !,
ing OF tho case of Harris county VS.. Stew
art tii ). w. Rep, page 650l. or 10 review :
lhe oase OF Leach VS.. State f36 Texls CIR Q
Rep, 2iS), nor will we do so further than a
TO suggest that we find nothing In the {
former case requiring us 10 change the | I
views expressed In the Leach case. p
Furthermore while not necessary, yet |,
he question being insisted on), we Will c
examine the position OF applicant with ref a
'nee to the caption OF the charter Of the . .
NY OF Dallas ms passed by the Twenty q
iith legislature, said caption being en- p
ltied, An aSt to Incorporate the city OF u
'alias ana grant II new charter" An a.
'eilahts contention Is, that IL II be con- a.
SUED that the legislature has the power, a.
u accordance with the view taken by tho o.
supreme court In Harris county VS. Stew II
Wy, supra, TO confer jurisdiction upon W
court, and so create a State NJ
curt that the legislature has not done so a.
u TINS instance, Entertaining The view lt
. We do that municipal court Is not n al
state court, except In u limited sense that st
:, q State court for municipal purposes ~
niyh We would expect TO find under the al
pove caption not State court MS a rart u
= the judicial system OF the State, but a pr
court having jurisdiction aud OF
osnlxanee OF matters incidental TO the IN
orporation. In this regard we hold me 90
lows expressed In blessing VS.. CITY n
iaiveston 40 Texas. page GAIL. As we
nuers,and that ease. y was an injunction ST
roceeding brought by Blessing ana others =,
RESTRAIN tho city OF Galveston erum -.
reeeeding in prosecutions alleged 10 have ~
esn commenccd By Warrants issued by de
onn ;. Rhea. claiming 10 be acting ss IN,
ecordsr, under pretense of authority eli az
'ged to have been conferred on him hv
p act Of the legislature. Incorporating tSe 81
ny OF Galveston. Several OF the parties | ir'