Kneedler v. State
W. R. Kneedler and G. A. Kneedler v. State
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
HAWKINS, Judge.
Conviction is for violating the Sunday Law, punishment being assessed at a fine of twenty dollars against each of the appellants.
The prosecution originated in the County Court of Wilbarger County. The complaint was taken by the acting county attorney of said county. So far as the record before us shows no information was ever filed. Without an information the county court had no jurisdiction. See Art. 29, C. C. P., Ethridge v. State, 76 Texas Crim. Rep., 41 ; Day v. State, 127 Texas Crim. Rep., 19 , 74 S. W. (2d) 699 .
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
On Rehearing
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
HAWKINS, Judge.
The State has filed a motion for re-
hearing, attaching thereto supplemental transcript from which this court is now advised that the prosecution originated in a justice court where appellants were convicted, from which conviction they appealed to the county court. Under such circumstances an information was not required.
It appears that upon the trial in the county court appellants were upon conviction each assessed a fine of $20.00. Article 53, C. C. P., denies appellate jurisdiction to this court in a case which has been appealed from an inferior court to the county court and in the latter court the fine imposed did not exceed one hundred dollars. See cases cited under Note 2, Art. 53, in Vernon’s Ann. Texas C. C. P., Vol. 1.
The State’s motion for rehearing is granted, the order of reversal is set aside, and the appeal is now dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in this court to entertain it.
Appeal dismissed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 9 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.