Case Name: Bummer Hines v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1918-02-20
Citations: 83 Tex. Crim. 195
Docket Number: No. 4913
Parties: Bummer Hines v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 83
Pages: 195–198

Head Matter:
Bummer Hines v. The State.
No. 4913.
Decided February 20, 1918.
Rehearing denied April 10, 1918.
1. —Local Option—Constitutional Law—Judicial Act—Ministerial Act.
The local option law is not invalid because it authorizes the Commissioners Court to declare the result of the vote and order its publication. This is not a judicial, but a ministerial act.
2. —Same—Constitutional Law—Commissioners Court—Result of Election.
The power conferred upon the Commissioners Court of prohibiting the sale of intoxicants in the territory in which the election was held, after the result of said election was declared, is not legislative, but a ministerial act, under article 5721, Rev. Civ. Stats.
3. —Same—Legislative Act—Commissioners Court—Result of Election.
It is the Legislature that enacts the local option law and not the Commissioners Court, and this does not become final or operative until the people have declared their wishes in regard to it at the proper election, and the Commis- ■ sioners Court simply follows the law, canvasses the vote, declares the result, and orders the prohibition of selling intoxicants.
4. —Same—Statutes Construed—Commissioners Court—Result of Election.
If the vote results favorably to local option, it would necessarily follow that the law would go into operation as soon as the Commissioners Court declared the result, and this itself prohibits the sale of intoxicants upon, the publication of the order.
Appeal from the District Court of Ellis. Tried below before the Hon. E. L. Hawkins.
Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the local option law; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Tom P. Whipple, for appellant.
E. B. Hendricks, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
question of constitutionality of statute: Rippy v. State, 44 Texas Crim. Rep., 72.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
Appellant was convicted, of violating the local option law and allotted two years confinement in the penitentiary.
The only question suggested for revision is the alleged unconstitutionality of the local option law in that it is invalid because it authorizes the declaration of the result of the vote and ordering its publication by the Commissioners Court. The proposition is made that this is a judicial act, and, therefore, not within the authority of the Legislature to grant to the Commissioners Court. We are of opinion that this proposition is not sound. It is not a judicial act as contended by appellant. It is ministerial. The Legislature had the power to authorize the Commissioners Court to declare the result of this election and order its publication. This does not determine the matter judicially. It only declares the result as found upon the face of the returns. The Commissioners Court would have no authority to go into the ballot boxes and count the votes to determine the matter. That only could be done where there was a contest, in the proper tribunal, in case the election was contested. This must be done by a direct proceeding as provided by the statute. The Commissioners Court simply determines the fact from the face of the returns the result of 'the election. In all elections there must be some means provided to ascertain and declare the result. This is made up from the face of the returns as reported by the election officers, and is not judicial but ministerial.
We have not thought it necessary to go into a detailed discussion of this matter, but believing that the contention of appellant to be unsound, the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.