Trigg v. State
Citations
- 49 Tex. 645
Syllabus
<p>1. Habitual drunkenness.—In a proceeding under section 24 of article 5 of the Constitution of 1876, to remove an officer for “habitual drunkenness.” it is sufficient to allege that such officer was guilty of habitual drunkenness.</p> <p>2. Same.—Habitual drunkenness is a distinct fact within itself: a condition of body and mind produced by the excessive use of intoxicating liquors, confirmed by habit.</p> <p>3. Same.—It is not necessary to its definition that specific instances of drunkenness be alleged, or the effect upon the mind or body produced thereby.</p> <p>4. Same.—Acts of drunkenness between the election and qualification of such officer should not have been allowed in the pleading or in evidence.</p> <p>5. Same—Pleading.—Allegations charging, with time and place, four acts of drunkenness in as many months, would not be sufficient, from which the charge of habitual drunkenness could be inferred as a necessary or legal consequence.</p> <p>6. Official misconduct in a county attorney.—Such charge against a county attorney was sufficiently made by an allegation that, in assuming to prosecute a party accused of an offense, he had intentionally managed the prosecution so as to procure his acquittal, when lie knew the accused was guilty of the offense with which he was charged.</p> <p>7. Constitutional law.—Section 24 of article 6 of the Constitution of 1876, was made in aid of, and to keep in order, the political organization of the State government, by a summary mode of removing county officers, and not until lately adopted in reference to them.</p> <p>8. Same.—It declares “ official misconduct, habitual drunkenness,” &c., to be a disqualification from holding such offices, and points out a summary mode of determining that fact, and of executing the declared consequence of removal by the district judge, “upon the cause therefor being set forth in writing, and the finding its truth by a jury.”</p> <p>9. Same.—Officers named in said section 24 of article 5 take
Judges: Roberts
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
14 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Morrow v. CorbinTexas Supreme Court· 1933-06-24· cited 287×
- Koy v. SchneiderTexas Supreme Court· 1920-04-21· cited 124×
- Gallagher v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1985-05-29· cited 71×
- In Re GuerraTex. App. Ct., 13th Dist.· 2007-10-16· cited 56×
- Emerson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1987-03-04· cited 23×
- Talamantez v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1992-03-25· cited 15×
- State v. RichardsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1906-11-05· cited 10×
- Seay v. HuntTexas Supreme Court· 1881-12-21· cited 8×
- In Re MurrayTex. App. Ct., 10th Dist. (Waco)· 2008-11-05· cited 1×
- Jay v. Nesco Acceptance Corp. (In Re Jay)N.D. Texas· 2003-09-30· cited 1×
- Commonwealth v. RudmanAllegheny County Court of Quarter Sessions· 1946-04-03· cited 1×
- in Re Donna MurrayTex. App. Ct., 10th Dist. (Waco)· 2008-11-05
- in Re: Juan Angel Guerra, District and County Attorney for Willacy County, State of TexasTex. App. Ct., 13th Dist.· 2007-09-21
- State v. Paul Reed HarperTexas Supreme Court· 2018-06-29
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.