Chaplin v. State

Citations

• 7 Tex. Ct. App. 87

Syllabus

<p>1. Jurisdiction of County Courts.—It is settled by previous adjudications that the County Courts have jurisdiction, concurrent with Justices’ Courts, of all misdemeanors cognizable by the latter courts.</p> <p>2. Continuance. — Service of a subpæna on a witness who resides in a different county than that of the forum is not due diligence. Attachment is the process requisite for such a witness.</p> <p>3. Same — Ignorance of Law.—Being charged, under art. 6512, Paschal’s Digest, with unlawfully carrying a pistol about bis person in the county of B., the defendant sought a 'continuance to obtain the testimony of an absent witness, by whom he expected to prove that, being a traveller, and ignorant whether said county was one of those in which said article was in force, he made inquiry of a citizen of the county, and was told that it was not; and that, relying on this information, he openly and innocently carried the pistol about his person. Held; that the object of the desired testimony was to prove ignorance of law, and as that could avail nothing as a defence, the desired evidence was immaterial. Held further, that the fact that said county had formerly been exempted from the operation of said article does not affect the question.</p> <p>4. Repeal — Carrying Weapons. — Though the repeal of a penal law, even while a conviction under it is pending on appeal, ordinarily exempts the offender from punishment, such a result does not ensue if legislative intention has been otherwise declared. And as the Revised Penal Code and Statutes have amply provided against such an effect on pending prosecutions, the appellant, though a traveller, and his appeal pending when they took effect, derives no immunity from the provision of the Penal Code which exempts travellers from the operation of the law against carrying certain deadly weapons, and thereby to that extent repeals the enactment under which the conviction was had in this case.</p>