Case Name: Ex parte JONISCHKIES
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-02-09
Citations: 227 S.W. 952
Docket Number: No. 6099
Parties: Ex parte JONISCHKIES.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 227
Pages: 952–953

Head Matter:
Ex parte JONISCHKIES.
(No. 6099.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 9, 1921.
Rehearing Denied March 2, 1921.)
1. Municipal corporations <&wkey;>639(l) — Complaint charging mere failure to observe traffic ordinance insufficient.
A complaint charging the owner of an automobile with failing to drive on the right-hand side of the traffic pole on a street was insufficient to charge driving on the wrong or left side of the pole.
2. Municipal corporations <&wkey;639(l) — Complaint charging violation of ordinance must state facts.
A complaint charging violation of an ordinance must state facts which, if true, amount to a violation of the law.
On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Habeas corpus &wkey;o30(2) — Conviction by county court subject to attack for insufficiency of complaint.
Defendant convicted in county court of violating an ordinance can attack the judgment of conviction by original application to the Court of Criminal Appeals for writ of ha-beas corpus on ground that the complaint was void, in that it charged no act which could be held penal.
Original application for writ of habeas corpus by Henry Jonischkies. Petitioner released from custody.
J. F. Murray, of Runge, for appellant.
Tom Cheatham, Co. Atty., of Cuero, and Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
This is an original ha-beas corpus by which relator seeks release from confinement by virtue of a capias pro fine issued from the county court of De Witt county. The record discloses that relator was convicted in the corporation court of Yorktown and appealed his case to the county court of De Witt county, where he was again convicted; capias pro fine issuing as a result. The ground of this application is that the complaint against relator is void, in that, admitting the truth of its allegations, no offense is set forth, and that consequently all oilier proceedings herein are also void. There being no appeal further than the said county court, wé have issued this writ.
The charging part of said complaint is as follows:
"Did then and there unlawfully and willfully violate a traffic ordinance by failing to drive his automobile on right-hand side around traffic pole in Main street, of city of Yorktown, Tex., contrary to the ordinance of said city of Yorktown."
Attached to said application appears a copy of the traffic ordinances of said city.
Therein we find no ordinance penalizing the owner of an automobile who fails to drive same on the right-hand side of the traffic pole on Main street, in said city. If we found such ordinance we should hold it void. The owner of a car cannot be punished for his failure to operate it or his failure to drive it on any particular street, or failure to drive around any particular side of any traffic pole. In other words, this relator was not charged with driving or operating a car which he then and there drove on the wrong or left side of a given point, but is simply charged with a failure to drive it on the right-hand side. Every word charged in the complaint might be true of each member of this court, or of relator, if he left his car in his garage, or if he had never driven it on Main street, for he would then "fail to drive it on the right-hand side of the traffic pole on Main street."
It is fundamental that the complaint must state facts which, if true, amount to a violation of the law. For the reason that the complaint in the instant case does not measure up to this fundamental requirement, it is void.
The relief prayed for is granted, and the sheriff of De Witt county is directed to release relator from the restraint of said ca-pias pro fine.
other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes