Case Name: Ex parte WILLIAMS et al.
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1926-03-03
Citations: 281 S.W. 208
Docket Number: No. 10126
Parties: Ex parte WILLIAMS et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 281
Pages: 208–209

Head Matter:
Ex parte WILLIAMS et al.
(No. 10126.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 3, 1926.)
G. W. Lindsey, of Dallas, for appellants.
Sam D.' Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
It appears that the re-lators, by complaint in the justicfe court, were charged as accessories to the crime of murder; that they made application to Hon. Felix D. Robertson, judge of the criminal district court No.,1 of Dallas county, for'a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted and made returnable on the 20th of February. It seems that, upon the date of the return, the hearing upon the application was postponed. The relief sought is that this court issue a writ of mandamus commanding the district judge of the criminal district court No. 1 of Dallas county to hear and try the issues presented by the application for a writ of habeas corpus and return.
Power is conferred upon -this court by the Constitution, art. 5, § 5, and by statute, to issue writs necessary to enforce its jurisdiction. See 2 Verqon's Tex. Crim. Stat. art. 69. The present application, we think, does not come within the scope of the power mentioned. In the absence of a final judgment from which an appeal would lie, the proceeding in question seems to be under the exclusive control- of the district court in which the applie¿tion for a writ of habeas corpus is pending. The precedents which are analogous are Ex parte Firmin, 131 S. W. 1116, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 222; Ex parte Quesada, 29 S. W. 473, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 116; Eaves v. Landis, 258 S. W. 1056, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 555.
The petition is denied.