The following is the petition submitted to the Court of Criminal Appeals for mandamus: “To the Honorable Presiding Judge and Associate Justices of the Court of Criminal Appeals for the State of Texas: ‘‘ Comes now A. W. Seeligson, informant and demandant, attorney for John Quesada, alias John Clanton, and respectfully shows to the court, that heretofore, to wit, on the 20th day of June, 1891, the said John Quesada, alias John Clanton, was, in a case entitled ‘ The State of…
Decided 1895-02-06
HURT, Presiding Judge.
¶1
Application for a writ of mandamus to compel the district judge to try the question of insanity after con
*117
viction and judgment for robbery. This court has no jurisdiction to issue the writ for that purpose. This court can issue the writ only for the purpose of enforcing its own jurisdiction. Const., art. 5, sec. 5. If the question of insanity had been tried under the provisions of the code, and the appellant had been found sane against the great overwhelming preponderance of the testimony, and if every rule of evidence had been violated in the trial, no appeal would lie to this court; and if we have no appellate jurisdiction, the writ in this cause would not be to enforce the jurisdiction of this court.
¶2
The application for writ of mandamus is denied. See Darnell v. The State, 24 Texas Criminal Appeals, 6.
