Case Name: Tom Hamilton v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-01-10
Citations: 65 Tex. Crim. 508
Docket Number: No. 1098
Parties: Tom Hamilton v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 65
Pages: 508–518

Head Matter:
Tom Hamilton v. The State.
No. 1098.
Decided January 10, 1912.
Rehearing denied March 20, 1912.
1.—Local Option—Statement of Facts.
Where the record on appeal -showed no order was entered authorizing the statement of facts or bill of exceptions to be filed after term time, the same was stricken out on motion of the State. Following Misso v. State, 61 Texas Grim. Rep., 241, and other eases.
2. —Same—Statutes Construed—Repeal.
The Vagrancy Act does not repeal the local option law as contended by defendant. Following Parshall v. State, 62 Texas Grim. Rep., 177.
3. —Same—Repeal—Statutes Construed.
The Act of April 24th, 1909, p. 356, making it a felony to unlawfully sell intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory does not repeal the old article 402, Penal Code, which makes such sale a misdemeanor, where the election was held prior to the Felony Act. Following Lewis v. State, 58 Texas Grim. Rep., 351.
4. —Same—Statutes Construed.
Article 597, New Revised Penal Code, provides that a violation of the local option law is a misdemeanor only where the election was held prior to the Act of 1909, and a felony, if the election is held thereafter.
5. —Same—Statutes Construed.
See opinion as to power of Legislature to change the penalty of the local option law.
6. —Same—Motion in Arrest of Judgment—Form—Substance.
A mere formal objection to the indictment or information can not be reached by a motion in arrest of judgment, this only goes to the substance thereof and not to the form, and a formal objection must be taken before the trial of the case. Following West v. State, 6 Texas Grim. App., 485, and other cases.
7. —Same—Date of Offense—Motion in Arrest of Judgment.
Upon a trial of a violation of the local option law, the information or indictment must allege that the election had been held prior to the time the Act of the Legislature became effective making the offense a felony, but an objection on this ground is formal and must be filed prior to announcement and prior to a verdict by the jury, and can not be reached by motion in arrest of judgment. Davidson, Presiding Judge, dissenting. Qualifying Head v. State, 64 Texas Grim. Rep., 112.
8. —Same—Jurisdiction—Date of Offense—Motion in Arrest.
Our code fixes the jurisdiction of County and District Courts'as a matter of law, and an exception to the indictment or information that they do not allege that the local option election had been held prior to the time the Act of the Legislature became effective making the offense a felony, is not an objection to the jurisdiction of the court, because such date of the election is not descriptive of the offense and is not a matter of substance; it is therefore only a formal objection which can not be made after the verdict by a motion in arrest of judgment. Davidson, Presiding Judge, dissenting.
9. —Same—Statutes Construed—Statement of Facts.
.Section 1 of the Official Stenographer’s Act of 1909, provides that only in the event official shorthand reporters are appointed, the terms of that Act shall apply; and where the statement of facts, in an appeal from the County Court, was filed after adjournment without an order of court, the same must be stricken out on motion of the State. Following Mosher v. State, 62 Texas Grim. Rep., 42, and other cases.
Appeal from the County Court of McLennan. Tried below before the Hon. Tom L. McCullogh.
Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the local option law; penalty, a fine of $100 and twenty days confinement in the county jail.
The opinion states the case.
Howell L. Taylor and J. W. Taylor, for appellant.
In order to show the jurisdiction of the court, it is necessary to allege the date at which the people put local option into effect: Mizell v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Rep., 226, 128 S. W. Rep., 125; Lewis v. State, 58 Texas Crim. Rep., 351, 127 S. W. Rep., 808; Coy v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Rep., 379, 128 S. W. Rep., 414; State v. Taylor, 85 S. W. Rep., 564; State v. McKee, 104 S. W. Rep., 486.
On question of striking out statement of facts: Section 7, Act of 1909.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, Judge.
On May 26, 1910, information and complaint were properly filed against the appellant charging him with unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor to one Damon in justice precinct Ho. 7 of McLennan County, after prohibition had therein been properly carried, declared and published. He was tried and convicted June 9, 1910, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $100 and twenty days in jail.
The court at which he was tried convened on May 2, 1910, and adjourned June 18, 1910. The purported statement of facts and bills of exception in this case were filed July 5, 1910. The record shows no order entered authorizing the statement of facts or bills of exception to be filed after term time. • The Assistant Attorney-General has made a motion to strike them out on that account. Under the long and uniform holding of this court the said motion must be sustained and the purported statement of facts and the bills of exception stricken out. Misso v. State, 61 Texas Crim. Rep., 241, 135 S. W., 1173; Blackshire v. State, 33 Texas Crim. Rep., 160; Dement v. State, 39 Texas Crim. Rep., 271; Williams v. State, 35 Texas Crim. Rep., 391; Irby v. State, 34 Texas Crim. Rep., 283; Mosher v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 42, 136 S. W. Rep., 467; Griffin v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 98, 136 S. W. Rep., 778; Moore v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 119, 136 S. W., 1067; Gentry v. State, 137 S. W. Rep., 696.
Ho question raised by the hills of exception on the introduction or exclusion of testimony can, therefore, be considered by us.
There are two questions, however, raised by the motion of the appellant to quash the information and complaint and to arrest the judgment which it is necessary for us to decide. The first is, appellant contends that the Vagrancy Act repeals the Prohibition Act under which appellant was prosecuted. This question was fully discussed and decided against appellant in the case of Parshall v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 177, 138 S. W., 759.
The other question is, appellant contends that the Act of April 24, 1909, p. 356, making it a felony to unlawfully sell intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory, repealed the old article 402 of the Penal Code, which made such sale a misdemeanor only.
In the case of Lewis v. State, 58 Texas Crim. Rep., 351, and some cases since that decision following it, this court held that said Act of 1909 did not repeal said article 402, because it was not the intention of the Legislature that the felony statute should apply where the elections were held putting prohibition in effect before the Act of 1909. Since the Thirty-Second Legislature, in passing the revised Criminal Code, had distinctly, in the new revised Code, article 597, enacted the effect of the decision in the Lewis case whereby it is made a misdemeanor only to illegally sell intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory where the election was held prior to the Act of 1909, and a felony in such territory where elections are held since then, we are constrained to hold that appellant's contention is not correct.
The writer is of the opinion that the Legislature has the power and authority to change the penalty whether prohibition has been put in force by an election held prior or subsequent to the enactment of the law, if the legislative enactment clearly shows such intent by the Legislature. And as he understands the Constitution, he would hot be bound by the Lewis case, supra, or any case subsequently following it, if the Legislature should clearly enact otherwise.
There being no reversible error pointed out, the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.