Case Name: The State v. J. J. Sneed
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 66
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State v. J. J. Sneed.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 66–67

Head Matter:
The State v. J. J. Sneed.
Where an offense under the statute was barred by limitations at the time the Code went into1 effect, the extension by the latter, of the time necessary to bar the offense, will not revive the right of action in the State; and a prosecution of the same cannot be maintained. (Penal Code, Art. 186; Paschal’s Digest, Art. 2653, Note 706.)
The Legislature cannot have intended to give an ex post facto operation to the • Code.
Appeal from Travis. Tried below before Hon. A. W. Terrell.
Indictment for violation of the Act of February 8, 1856, regulating estrays, alleging the offense to have been committed on the 1st day of January, A. D. 1856. Indictment filed December 4, A. D. 1857.
Defendant filed general and special exceptions to the indictment, which were sustained.
Geo. Flournoy, Attorney General, for the State.
Wm. Byrd, for the appellee.
On the 3d March, 1869, Congress passed the following act, which is in contravention of this principle:
“That the time for finding indictments in the courts of the United States in the late rebel States, for offenses cognizable by said courts, and which may 'have been committed since said States went into rebellion, be, and hereby is, extended for the period of one year from and after said States are or may be restored to representation in Congress: Provided, however, That the provisions hereof shall not apply to treason or other political offenses.” Approved March 3, 1869.
This act involves the question of constitutional law, whether Congress can restore a right of prosecution barred by the statute of limitations. This is considered in 1 Bishop’s Criminal Law, sec. 219, (a,) edition of 1868, and Note 1; and see speech of Wm. Lawrence, in House of Representatives, in the Congress of the United States, January 4,1867. In this speech Mr. Lawrence argued in favor of the power; see also Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, Notes 143, 156.

Opinion:
Egberts, J.
—In this case the bar of the statute of limitations of one year was completed before the Code went into operation, by which the period of limitation of prosecutions in such misdemeanors was extended to two years. The State having neglected to prosecute within the time prescribed for its own action, lost the right to prosecute the suit. To give an Act of the Legislature, passed after such loss, the effect of reviving the right of action in the State, would give it an operation ex post facto, which we cannot suppose the Legislature intended.-
Judgment affirmed.