Case Name: Ex parte MUSE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1914-06-10
Citations: 168 S.W. 520
Docket Number: No. 3183
Parties: Ex parte MUSE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 168
Pages: 520–522

Head Matter:
Ex parte MUSE.
(No. 3183.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 10, 1914.
On Motion for Rehearing, June 24, 1914.)
1. Habeas Corpus (§ 113 )—Review—Decisions Reviewable.
No appeal lies from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Habeas Corpus, Cent. Dig. §§ 102-115; Dec. Dig. § 113. ]
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Intoxicating Liquobs (§ 14 )—Constitu-tionality of Acts.
The Allison Law of August 21, 1913 (Acts 33d Leg. [Ex. Sess.] c. 31), providing that except as otherwise provided therein it shall be unlawful for any person to deliver to any other person any. intoxicating liquor for shipment, transportation, or carriage within the state, and that it shall be unlawful for any person to deliver any intoxicating liquor to any other person in the state, is constitutional.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. § 16; Dec. Dig. § 14. ]
3. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 210 ) — Criminal Prosecutions — Indictment.
An indictment under the Allison Law of August 21, 1913 (Acts 33d Leg. [Ex. Sess.] c. 31), charging in two counts that the law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors had been duly voted upon, carried, and was in force in the county at the time of the offense charged, and that accused unlawfully delivered to Y. intoxicating liquors for shipment, transportation, and carriage within the state, and that he unlawfully delivered to Y. intoxicating liquor in violation of such law, charged an offense under that act, which expressly provides that an indictment need not negative the exceptions therein made, but that they shall be available only as defensive matters.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. § 250; Dec. Dig. § 210. ]
4. Habeas Corpus (§ 102 ) — Scope op Inquiry.
After indictment found, the only matters open to consideration on habeas corpus are the sufficiency of the indictment to charge an offense and the constitutionality of the act under which the indictment is drawn.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Habeas Corpus, Cent. Dig. §§ 87-89; Dec. Dig. § 102. ]
Davidson, J., dissenting.
Appeal from District Court, Cooke County; C. F. Spencer, Judge.
Habeas corpus by L. D. Muse. From a Judgment remanding the relator to the custody of the sheriff, the relator appeals.
Affirmed on rehearing.
J. T. Adams, of Gainesville, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Deo. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, P. J.
On May 2, 1914, the grand jury of Cooke county duly indicted said Muse for a felony. On the same date the clerk issued the proper capias on said indictment under which the sheriff of Cooke county duly arrested and held said Muse. On May 27th appellant petitioned the district judge of Cooke county for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging the said indictment, capias, and that he was held by the sheriff thereunder, merely alleging that he was illegally restrained of his liberty and confined in the county jail of Cooke county by the sheriff. The judge at no time granted the writ, but the sheriff, in response to Muse's petition for the writ, waived time, etc., and broughfhis prisoner before the district judge showing the said authority for his holding him. The judge heard evidence on Muse's petition and held that he was legally held in custody and under restraint by the sheriff, and denied his writ of habeas corpus and remanded him to the custody of the sheriff, from which action by the judge appellant gave notice of appeal and has attempted to appeal.
An appeal from such action does not lie, and this court has no jurisdiction thereof. Ex Parte Thomas, 61 Tex. Cr. R. 573, 136 S. W. 60.
This case is therefore dismissed.