Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

74 Tex. Crim. 476

168 S.W 520

Ex Parte Muse

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided June 24, 1914

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1914-06-24

<p>1. —Habeas Corpus—Practice on Appeal.</p> <p>Where an appeal from the District Court refusing a writ of habeas corpus was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, but it afterwards appeared on a proper showing on rehearing that said court had heard evidence and tried the case, the appeal is reinstated.</p> <p>2. —Same—Indictment—Allison Liquor Law—Negative Averments.</p> <p>Where defendant was regularly indicted under the Act of August 21, 1913, known as the Allison Liquor Law, it was not necessary that the indictment allege and negative the exceptions in said act, as these were matters of defense, and the indictment being otherwise sufficient, there was no reversible error on that ground.</p> <p>3. —Same—Constitutional Law.</p> <p>The Act of August 21, 1913, known as the Allison Liquor Law, is constitutional. Davidson, Judge, dissenting.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1949

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1914-06-24

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PBENDEBGAST, Presiding Judge.

¶1 On May 2, 1914, the grand jury of Cooke County duly indicted said Muse for a felony. On the same date the clerk issued the proper capias on said indictment under which the sheriff of Cooke County duly arrested and held said Muse. On May 27th appellant petitioned the district judge of Cooke County for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging the said indictment, capias, and that he was held by the sheriff thereunder, merely alleging that he was illegally restrained of his liberty and confined in the county jail of Cooke County by the sheriff. The judge at no time granted the writ, but the sheriff, in response to Muse’s petition for the writ, waived time, etc., and brought his prisoner before the district judge showing the said authority for his holding him. The judge heard evidence on Muse’s petition and held that he was legally held in custody and under restraint by the sheriff, and denied his writ of habeas corpus and remanded him to the custody of the sheriff, from which action by the judge appellant gave notice of appeal and has attempted to appeal.

¶2 An appeal from such action does not lie and this court has no jurisdiction thereof. Ex parte Thomas, 61 Texas Crim. Rep., 573. This case is, therefore, dismissed.

¶3 Dismissed.

/74/texcrim/476 · .json · Public domain