Court Opinion

ID: 9885852
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 15:14:31.322176+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:49:17.889173
License: Public Domain

*506On Rehearing.
In his motion for rehearing respondent requests that we directly pass upon the question of the constitutionality .of the legislation. In deference to this request we here hold that the legislation is not subject to the objection made thereto as to its constitutionality. The general subject of the act was the provision of the method of appeal by a pauper. Its. purpose was not to provide the compensation for court reporters, but to provide effective means of appeal by one unable to pay costs or give security therefor. The. caption furnished sufficient notice to the legislators that the subject of compensation was covered in the body of the act. That is all that is required.
If respondent’s contention is correct, then the whole law creating the office of court reporter and providing for all of his compensation is likewise unconstitutional. The caption to chapter 119, Acts of the 32nd Legislature, 1911, is subject to the same vice as that urged here. In the case of Rice v. Roberts (Tex. Civ. App.) 177 S. W. 149, the constitutionality of that act, in so far as same required the court reporter to furnish a transcript of the testimony to a pauper without compensaron, was questioned. The opinion of Chief Justice Key in that case might, with slight modifications, be applied to the contention here presented.
The motion will be overruled.