Case Name: John Wear v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1894-04-18
Citations: 35 Tex. Crim. 30
Docket Number: No. 545
Parties: John Wear v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 30–33

Head Matter:
John Wear v. The State.
No. 545.
Decided April 18th, 1894.
Motion for Rehearing Decided March 16th, 1895.
1. Keeping Open a Barroom on Election Day—Indictment.
It is no ground for quashing an indictment for keeping open a barroom on an election day, that the election was not legally authorized to be held upon that day. The validity of such election is not subject to collateral attack where it was held under the forms of law.
2. Same—As to an Election not Held on the Day Fixed by Law.
By statute, it is provided that school trustees of. a town, incorporated for school purposes, shall be elected on the first Tuesday in April in each year. Through a misconstruction of the law by the officers, since the incorporation of the town of H., such elections had been regularly held, without question as to their validity on the first Saturday in June, the day set apart for the election of school trustees under the school district system. It was insisted that such election was void, and being void, corrld be attacked in any collateral proceeding in which it was involved; but, Held: That the election was not void on account of the mistake as to the day, there being no evidence of unfairness, fraud or corruption in holding it.
Appeal from the County Court of Bell. Tried below before Hon. John M. Furman, County Judge.
This appeal is from a conviction for keeping open a barroom on election day, the punishment being assessed at a fine of §100.
Defendant filed a motion to quash the indictment, “because it appears from the face of the indictment that the third day of June was not the day lawfully authorized for the holding of an election for the election of school trustees in the Holland-public school district; and, if any election was therein held, the same was illegal and not authorized bylaw,” etc.
This motion to quash was overruled.
A. M. Monteith and D. R. Pendleton, for appellant.
Mann Trice, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSOU, Judge.
Appellant was convicted for opening, and keeping open, Ms saloon on an election day. TMs indictment alleged, the election was held on the 3rd day of June, in the Holland public school district, and voting precinct and town; said day being an election day, on which an election was being then and there held, by lawful authority, for the purpose of electing school trustees for the Holland public free school district, etc. On motion to quash, it was urged the election was not legally authorized to be held on said day, etc. The motion was not well taken. Cooper v. State, 25 Texas Crim. App., 530; Cooper v. State, 26 Texas Crim. App., 575; Janks v. State, 29 Texas Crim. App., 233; Geib v. State, 31 Texas Crim. Rep., 514. Under the well settled rules, the validity of such election is not subject to collateral attack in regard to the manner of ordering and holding the same, where the same is held under the forms of law. "It was not a farce, and the mischief intended to be prevented by the statute would as likely arise in one case as the other." Cooper v. State, 26 Texas Crim. App., 575; Janks v. State, 29 Texas Crim. App., 233; Geib v. State, 31 Texas Crim. Rep., 514. The bills of exceptions were reserved with reference to evidence in regard to the manner of ordering the election, and the charges given and refused were in regard to the same matter. The action of the court was correct in both particulars. The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.