Case Name: J. M. Lindley v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-12-10
Citations: 99 Tex. Crim. 85
Docket Number: No. 8913
Parties: J. M. Lindley v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 99
Pages: 85–88

Head Matter:
DECEMBER, 1924.
J. M. Lindley v. The State.
No. 8913.
Delivered Dec. 10, 1924.
Rehearing denied Feb. 4, 1925.
1. —Possessing Intoxicating Liquor — Jurisdiction—of Criminal District Courts of Dallas County.
It appears from the record that appellant, pleaded guilty to the charge. The indictment in this cause was returned into Criminal District Court No.
2, of Dallas County. The cause was transferred to the Criminal District Court of Dallas County. It was tried, on a plea of guilty in the Criminal District Court of Dallas County, but with Hon. C. A. Pippen presiding as Judge. Objection to this procedure is presented for the first time in this court. It comes too late.
ON rehearing.
2. — Same—Indictment—Variance in Numbers of.
The question of a variance between the numbers of the indictment appearing in the record, comes too late, presented for the first time in this court. The transcripts in the cause, were evidently, inaccurately and carelessly prepared by the clerk of the District Court of Dallas County, but a careful inspection of the corrected transcript reveals, that appellant, was indicted, tried and convicted, and appeals from the conviction under cause No. 4302 in the same court by its proper judge in which the indictment was originally returned.
Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 2, of Dallas County. Hon. C. A. Pippen, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction of possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale; penalty, one year in the penitentiary.
Rasbury, Adams & Harrel, for appellant.
Shelby Cox, District Attorney, of Dallas; Tom Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover C. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the Criminal District Court of Dallas County of possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.
The indictment in this case appears to be in conformity with law as is the charge of the court in a case where there is a plea of guilty. It appears from the record that appellant pleaded guilty to the charge. At the time of appellant's trial in the Criminal District Court of Dallas county he made no complaint as far as the record shows of the fact that the indictment had been returned in Criminal District Court No. 2 of said county, or that Hon. C. A. Pippen, Judge of said court, sat on this trial. He attempts to raise these questions in this court for the first time. The contention comes too late. In English v. State, 18 S. W. Rep., 678, cited by appellant, the objections were presented before venue was changed. In Arts. 97ff and 9711 of Vernon's Complete Texas Statutes 1920, it appears that Criminal District Court of Dallas County and Criminal District Court No. 2 of said county are given concurrent jurisdiction in all felony cases of which either has jurisdiction and that the judge of either of said Criminal District Courts of Dallas County may, in his discretion,, in the absence of the judge of the other of said courts, try and dispose of any cause or causes then pending on the docket of such other court. From a corrected transcript now on file we note that while this cause was in fact transferred from Criminal District Court No. 2 to Criminal District Court of said county and the transfer noted on the docket, the order was not then extended into the minutes, but this has now been done. The question as to variance in the number is raised too late-. Hughey v. State, No. 8033, opinion handed' down December 3, 1924.
The judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.