Case Name: HINES v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1918-02-20
Citations: 202 S.W. 91
Docket Number: No. 4913
Parties: HINES v. STATE.
Judges: PRENDER,GAST, J., absent.
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 202
Pages: 91–93

Head Matter:
HINES v. STATE.
(No. 4913.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 20, 1918.
On Motion for Rehearing, April 10, 1918.)
1. Constitutional Law <&wkey;53 — Judicial Power — Ministerial Acts — Local Option Elections.
Declaring_ the result of a local option election and the issuance of an order prohibiting the sale of intoxicants by the commissioners’ court, under Vernon’s Say les’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 5721, are merely ministerial, and not judicial, acts.
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Constitutional Law &wkey;>61 — Legislative Power — Ministerial Acts — Local Option Elections.
So declaring the result of election and the issuance of such order are merely ministerial, and not legislative, acts.
3. Intoxicating Liquors <&wkey;36(5) — Local Option Elections — Statutes.
EVen if the Legislature did not have the power to authorize the commissioners’ court to issue an order prohibiting the sale of intoxicants as provided by Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 5721, it is practically immaterial, as the mere declaration by such body that the results of an election were in favor of local option would put the law in effect.
Appeal from District Court, Ellis County; F. L. Hawkins, Judge.
Bummer Hines was convicted of violating the local option law, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Tom P. Whipple, of Waxahachie, for appellant. E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law, and allotted two years' confinement in the penitentiary.
The only question suggested for revision is the alleged unconstitutionality of the local option law, in that it is invalid because it authorizes the declaration of the result of the vote and ordering its publication by the commissioners' court. The proposition is made that this, is a judicial act, and therefore not within the authority of the Legislature to grant to the commissioners' court. We are of opinion that this proposition is not sound. It is not a judicial act as contended hy appellant. It is ministerial. The Legislature had the power to authorize the commissioners' court to declare the result of this election and order its publication. This does not determine the matter judicially. It only declares the result as found upon the face of the returns. The commissioners' court would have no authority to go into the ballot boxes and count the votes to determine the matter. That only could be done where there was a contest, in the proper tribunal, in case the election was contested. This must be done by a direct proceeding as provided by the statute. The commissioners' court simply determines from the face of the returns the result of the election. In all elections there must be some means provided to ascertain and declare the result. This is made up from the face of the returns as reported by the election officers, and is not judicial, but ministerial.
We have not thought it necessary to go into a detailed discussion of this matter, but, believing the contention of appellant to be unsound, the judgment will be affirmed.
<§=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes