Case Name: Ex parte Henry ROWLEY v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1929-03-20
Citations: 15 S.W.2d 1118
Docket Number: No. 11848
Parties: Ex parte Henry ROWLEY v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 15
Pages: 1118–1119

Head Matter:
Ex parte Henry ROWLEY v. STATE.
(No. 11848.)
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 20, 1929.
Mathis & Caldwell, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.
Wayne Somerville, Co. Atty., Geo. W. Anderson, Asst. Co. Atty., and McDonald & Anderson, all of 'Wichita Falls, and A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for tlie State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The appeal is from an order of the judge of the county court at law of Wichita county, refusing to discharge the appellant in a habeas corpus proceeding.
On the 18th day of January, 1928, the appellant was convicted of a misdemeanor. The penalty assessed was $100 fine and the cost of the proceeding, totaling $138.50. He sought a release upon the theory that under the law he was entitled to credit at the rate of $3 per day, and that by that measure the judgment against him had been satisfied by confinement. It is the contention of the state that his credit should be but $1 per day. The appellant relied upon the amendment of article 793, C. O. P., contained in chapter 68, Acts of the 40th Leg. 1st Called Sess. Before its amendment, article "793, supra, provided -for a credit of $3 per day under certain circumstances. As amended, the allowance was reduced to $1 per day, the act containing a proviso in these words: "Provided that the provisions of this act shall not apply to counties not having poor farms."
The facts present the exact legal question decided by this court in the case of Ex parte Troy Polly (No. 12292) 15 S.W.(2d) 16, not yet' [officially] reported, in which it was held that article 793, as it appears in the Code of Criminal Procedure, of 1925, was superseded by its amendment in chapter 68, p. 194, Acts 40th Leg. 1st Called Sess., supra, and that thereby the authority for the allowance of $3 per day was repealed, and further deciding that the proviso quoted was meaningless. In view of the comprehensive discussion of the matter in the Polly Case, supra, to which reference is made, further remarks in the present instance are deemed unnecessary.
The judgment is affirmed.