Case Name: Ex Parte A. Eldridge
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1914-01-21
Citations: 72 Tex. Crim. 529
Docket Number: No. 2958
Parties: Ex Parte A. Eldridge.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 72
Pages: 529–530

Head Matter:
Ex Parte A. Eldridge.
No. 2958.
Decided January 21, 1914.
Pool Hall—City Charter and Ordinance—Custody.
Where the record on appeal disclosed that relator is not in custody and has not been since he gave notice of appeal to this court, the appeal must be dismissed.
Appeal from the District Court of Tarrant. Tried below before the Hon. B. H. Buck.
Appeal from a conviction of running a pool hall; penalty, a fine of $30.
The opinion states the case.
No brief on file for appellant.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
Cited Ex parte Branch, 36 Texas Crim. Rep., 384; Ex parte Parvin, 63 id., 513.

Opinion:
HARPER, Judge.
In this case appellant shows that he was in custody by virtue of a judgment of the Corporation Court of the city of Fort Worth. He sued out a writ of habeas corpus before Hon. R. H. Buck, judge of the District Court of the Forty-eighth Judicial District. Upon a hearing he was remanded, and gave notice of appeal to this court. The record discloses that he is not in custody, and has not been, since he gave notice of appeal to this court. It has been so often de tided that this court will not entertain an appeal in habeas corpus cases unless the relator is in custody of the officers, it seems unnecessary to cite authorities, but see Ex parte Parvin, 63 Texas Crim. Rep., 512, and cases there cited.
Appeal dismissed.
Dismissed.