The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-05-12
4 BUDGET FROM BEAUMONT
Mayor Wheat Will Continue to Nun
City Court.
he GIVES His REASONS THEREFOR,
The school board Elected Teaches
recruits Are Coming In Rapidly.
Local Notes.

''he, lexis, May ll.-Mayor u. p
wheat this afternoon rendered the follow
Ing decision on a motion to dismiss !,
charge OF selling liquor on Sunday nre-
ierred against Herman Witt, barkeeper for
q. X. Jones. The motion to dismiss con-
TENDED that the city court had no jurisdic-
tion over the offense:
In passing upon the question Of iurisa,c-
tion OF the city courts, TO try this case I
VIII say that | have given the matter as
iuii investigation as has been within my
power in the limited time within which I
have had TO do so. I consider this a mo-
mentous question, in that it strikes at the
very vitality of one of the most important
branches of our city government, viz. the
iaw-making and law enforcing powers of
same
In reviewing the doctrine advanced In
the recent decisions OF our court of GRIM
maj appeals, | believe that the courl has
not entirely settled the question destroying
the jurisdiction OF the city courts when
the same is concurrent with the Justice OF
the peace courts, in this: In The case o.
COMBS VS.. The State, cited in the iith
southwestern Reporter, page S54, the
JNN5No thNiCpl ulSdSlttS " WHAT Inc law
is in the matter. This doctrine is also ad-
hered to in the cases of Ballard and Grow
ley VS.. The City of Dallas, recited in the
same volume.
In these cases ! believe that Justice
davidson Intended TO destroy the jurisdic-
ton of the city courts. and he advanced
some very strong reasoning and number
of authorities unfolding his position. Jus
tice Henderson says: II agree to the re-
suit reached; that the city court of Dallas
did not have jurisdiction to try this case :"
and says he will file his reasons later
which he has not as yet done, while
Chief Justice Hurt of the same court dis
sents from the opinion of the other two
Judges. Now these cases, 1t will be borne
in mind. were appealed from Dallas. a city
operating under a special charter granted
by the legislature, and the charter or
which sought to give the Dallas city court
jurisdiction over certain misdemeanors 10
the exclusion of the State courts
Now, In the case of Harris County VS.
Stewart cited in the 41st Southwestern Re-
porter, page $50, Chief Justice Brown asks
the question whether recorders courts had
the same jurisdiction over offenses over
which justices courts exercised jurisdiction,
and in answering, the judge most emphati-
cally answers in the affirmative, and also
advances strong reasoning aud numerous
authorities to support his position. The
constitution of our State--section l. article
5-fn creating the judiciary closes by say
ing: "And such other courts as may be
provided by law" This. It would seem,
would give the legislature authority 70
create the city courts. and it is upon this
article, principally, that Justice Brown
bases his ruling
I believe it was the intention of the
trainers of our constitution to give our leg
islature authority to create municipal
courts and while it is a fact that the legal
profession has been trying for several years
to lead our higher courts into adoptns
contrary doctrine, 1t is also fact that our
legislature has met time or two and paid
no attention to these decisions. thus recog-
nizing the right OF the legislature to create
these courts
Should 1t he the law that If city courts
has no jurisdiction to suppress crime and
punish law-hreakers. then why the nee S.
sitv Of a police force mayors court. or.
in fact, a city government? " We have no
jurisdiction to punish offenders. then We
have no authority TO prevent The commits
sion of the offense. and the law-breakng
elements of orr city. RECOGNIZING, our i'm
potency. would impose upon our HELPLESS
ness and crime. so far as our city authori-
ties would be concerned. would become
rampant.
Gentlemen. until our higher courts say
in emphatic terms that a city incorporated
under the laws under which this CITY was
Incorporated has no jurisdiction over these
offenses. I shall continue to execute what
I consider nv authority in the suppr ssiou
of crime and the protection OF Our city
therefore override the motion and hold that
we have Jurisdiction.