Case Name: HAMILTON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-01-10
Citations: 145 S.W. 348
Docket Number: 
Parties: HAMILTON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 145
Pages: 348–353

Head Matter:
HAMILTON v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 10, 1912.
On Motion for Rehearing, March 20, 1912.)
1. Criminal Law (§ 1099 ) — Bills of Exceptions — Time fob Filins.
Statements of fact and bills of exceptions, filed after term time, without an order authorizing such filing, will be stricken out on motion.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2866-2880; Dec. Dig. § 1099. ]
2.- Intoxicating Liqtjobs (§ 111 ) — Statutory Pbovisions.
Pen. Code 1895, art. 402, making the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors a misdemean- or, was not repealed by the vagrancy act (Acts 31st Leg. c. 59), defining and punishing vagrants.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. § 121; Dec. Dig. § 111. ]
3. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 111 ) — Statutory Provisions.
Pen. Code 1895, art. 402, making the sale of intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory a misdemeanor, was not repealed by the act of April 24, 1909 (1st Ex. Sess.) c. 35, making such sale a felony, article 402 applying where elections putting prohibition into effect were held before the passage of the act of 1909, and that act applying where the elections were held subsequent thereto.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. § 121; Dec. Dig. § 111. ]
On Motion for Rehearing.
4. Criminal Law (§’974 ) — Objections to Form — Waiver.
An objection that an information for selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory does not show that the election putting prohibition into effect was held before the passage of the Act of April 24, 1909, c. 35, making such sale a felony, is an objection to the form of the information, and to be available an exception must be taken before announcement for trial and a motion in arrest of judgment filed within two days after judgment, as required by Code Or. Proc. 1895, art. 826, and a conviction under such an information will be sustained where the information is first attacked by a motion in arrest of judgment filed eight days after judgment.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2469-2478; Dec. Dig. §• 974. ]
5. Indictment and Information (§§ 159, 161 ) — Amendments—Form or Substance.
Indictments and informations can be amended in matters of form under the direct provisions of Code Cr. Proc. 1895, art. 586, but not in matters of substance.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 505-514, 516-523; Dec. Dig. §§ 159, 161. ]
6. Criminal Law (§ 105 ) — Indictment and Information (§ 133 ) — Objections — Time for Taking.
If a court has no jurisdiction of a criminal case, objection on that ground may be made at any time, but an objection merely that the indictment or information does not show such jurisdiction is an objection to the form and must be taken as prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 216-218; Dec. Dig. § 105 ;* Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 454— 468; Dee. Dig. § 133. ]
7. Criminal Law (§§ 1092, 1099 ) — Time for Filing.
The Official Stenographers’ Act of 1909 (Acts 31st Leg. [1st Ex. Sess.] c. 39) § 7, providing that on an appeal from the district or county court the parties shall have thirty days after adjournment of court in which to prepare and file a statement of facts and bills of exception, by the express provisions of section 1 of that act only applies where official shorthand reporters have in fact been appointed.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2803, 2829, 2834-2861, 2919,. 2866-2880; Dec. Dig. §§ 1092, 1099. ] Davidson, P. X, dissenting in part.
Appeal from McLennan County Court;. Tom L. McCullough, Judge.
Tom Hamilton was convicted of unlawfully-selling intoxicating liquors, and he appeals-
Affirmed.
H. L. Taylor and J. W. Taylor, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER i: i Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r indexes-

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, J.
On May 26, 1910,. information and complaint were properly filed against the appellant charging him with unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor to one Damon in justice precinct No. 7 of McLennan county, after prohibition had therein been properly carried, declared, and published. He was tried and convicted June 9, 1910, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $100 and 20 days in jail.
The court at which he was tried convened on May 2, 1910, and adjourned June 18, 1910. The purported statement of facts and hills of exceptions in this case were filed July 5, 1910. The record shows no order entered authorizing the statement of facts or hills of exceptions to he filed after term time. The Assistant Attorney General has made a motion to strike them out on that account. Under the long and uniform holding of this court, the said motion must he sustained and the purported statement of facts • and the bills of exceptions stricken out. Misso v. State, 135 S. W. 1173; Blackshire v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 160, 25 S. W. 771; Dement v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 276, 45 S. W. 917; Williams v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 391, 33 S. W. 1080; Irby v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 283, 30 S. W. 221; Mosher v. State, 136 S. W. 467; Griffin v. State, 136 S. W. 778; Moore v. State, 136 S. W. 1067; Gentry v. State, 137 S. W. 696.
No question raised by the bills of exceptions on the introduction or exclusion of testimony can therefore be considered by us.
There are two questions, however, raised by the motion of the appellant to quash the information and complaint and to arrest the judgment which it is necessary for us to decide. The first is appellant contends that the vagrancy act repeals the prohibition act under which appellant was prosecuted. This question was fully discussed and decided against appellant in the case of Parshall v. State, 138 S. W. 759.
The other question is appellant contends that the act of April 24, 1909 (1st Ex. Sess.) p. 356, making it a felony to unlawfully sell intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory, repealed the old article 402 of the Penal Code which made such sale a misdemeanor only.
In the case of Lewis v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. R. 351, 127 S. W. 808, 21 Ann. Cas. 656, and some cases since that decision following it, this court held that said act of 1909 did not repeal said article 402 because it was not the intention of the Legislature that the felony statute should apply where the elections were held putting prohibition in effect before the act of 1909. Since the Thirty-Second Legislature, in passing the revised Criminal Codes, has distinctly, in the new revised Code (now article 597), enacted the effect of the decision in the Lewis Case, whereby it is made a misdemeanor only to illegally sell intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory where the election was held prior to the act of 1909, and a felony in such territory where elections are held since then, we are constrained to hold that appellant's contention is not correct.
The writer is of the opinion that the Legislature has the power and authority to Change the penalty whether prohibition has been put in force by an election held prior or subsequent to the enactment of the law, if the legislative enactment clearly shows such intent by the Legislature. And, as he understands the Constitution, he would not be bound by the Lewis Case, supra, or any case subsequently following it, if the Legislature should clearly enact otherwise.
There being no reversible error pointed out, the judgment will be affirmed.