Galloway v. State

Citations

• 23 Tex. Ct. App. 398
• 5 S.W. 246
• 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 91

Syllabus

<p>1. Interpretation oe the Codes—Restoration oe Criminal Jurisdiction to the County Court.—The county court of Burnet county was one of the county courts which, by the Act of the Seventeenth Legislature (Reg. Sess, 1881, chap. 19, pp. 12 and 13), entitled “An Act to diminish the civil and criminal jurisdiction of county courts,” was deprived of jurisdiction of all matters and causes, civil and criminal, over which it theretofore had jurisdiction under the general laws of the State, except as to matters of probate, etc. Section 5 of the Act of March 24, 1888 (Gen. Laws 19th Leg., Reg. Sess., chap. 49, pp. 47 and 48), * entitled “An Act to restore and confer upon the county courts of * * * counties [including Burnet county] the civil and criminal jurisdiction heretofore belonging to said courts under the Constitution and General Laws of the State,” etc., reads as follows: “Said county courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of all misdemeanors except misdemeanors involving official misconduct, and except cases in which the highest penalty of fine that may be imposed under the law may not exceed two hundred dollars; and said court shall also have appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases in which justices of the peace and other inferior tribunals in said county have original jurisdiction.” Held, that the effect of the said Act of March 24, 1885, was to reinvest the county court of Burnet county with the criminal jurisdiction of which it was deprived by the said Act of the Seventeenth Legislature. See the opinion in extenso on the question.</p> <p>2. Sale op Whisky on Sunday—Variance.—The prosecution was for selling whisky on Sunday. It is in proof that the beverage sold was “whisky cocktail,” a compound in which whisky was the predominant element. Held, that the sale was of “whisky” within the purview of the statute, and that there was no variance between the allegation and the proof.</p>