Case Name: Ex Parte T. J. McCorkle et al.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1890-06-18
Citations: 29 Tex. Ct. App. 20
Docket Number: No. 7075
Parties: Ex Parte T. J. McCorkle et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 29
Pages: 20–20

Head Matter:
Ex Parte T. J. McCorkle et al.
No. 7075.
Decided June 18.
Habeas Corpus—Practice.—The District Court has no authority to award the writ of habeas corpus so long as the case is pending before a magistrate sitting as an examining court.
Habeas Corpus on-appeal from the District Court of Hopkins. Tried below before Hon. E. W. Terhune.
The opinion sufficiently discloses the case.
Ho brief for the relator has reached the Reporter.
W. L. Davidson, Assistant Attorney-Genernal, for the State.

Opinion:
WILLSON, Judge.
Appellants were arrested upon a warrant of arrest issued by a magistrate of Hopkins County, based upon a complaint; charging them with the theft of certain cattle. They applied to the Hon. E. W. Terhune, judge of the Eighth Judicial District, for a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted, and upon a hearing thereof they were-remanded to the custody of the officer who had arrested them.
We are of the opinion that the writ should not have been granted pending the proceeding before the magistrate. The magistrate who issued the warrant of arrest had jurisdiction as an examining court to inquire-' " . into the offense charged in the complaint, and it was not proper, and not, in contemplation of the law, that another court or judge should defeat or interfere with that jurisdiction. In such case until the magistrate has, .after examination, refused to discharge the accused, the remedy by habeas, corpus is not available. Robertson v. The State, 36 Texas, 346; Church on Habeas Corpus, sec. 90; Ex Parte Kittrel, 20 Ark., 499.
It is ordered that this proceeding be and the same is dismissed at the cost of the applicants.
Ordered accordingly.
Judges all present and concurring.