Malloy v. State, 33 S.W. 1082 (Tex. Crim. App. 1896).
Malloy v. State, 33 S.W. 1082 (Tex. Crim. App. 1896). Book View Copy Cite
W. J. Malloy
v.
the State
No. 829..
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan 29, 1896.
33 S.W. 1082
Oeland Smith and Martin W. Littleton, for appellant. — 1. The court erred in overruling defendant's plea to the jurisdiction No. 1, in this cause, because as shown therein this court had no jurisdiction over said offense. 2. The court erred in allowing the County Attorney to amend said certificate of District Clerk transferring said cause to this court because the same was not done regularly. 3. The court erred in overruling defendant's plea to the jurisdiction No. 2, because the certificate of said District Clerk fails to show the offense for which said defendant was indicted. Before the County Court can acquire jurisdiction over a defendant indicted there must be a proper transfer from the District Court. The defendant presented a plea to the jurisdiction No. 1, because the indictment was not properly transferred to the County Court. The transfer shows a case against W.J. Mallory, and the charge was gaming, while the indictment was against W.J. Malloy, and the charge keeping and exhibiting. The court granted the State time to perfect the transfer and overruled defendant's motion No. 1 to quash. The County Attorney filed an amended transfer where the name of the defendant was corrected, but the offense for which the defendant was placed on trial was not named in the transfer. Defendant filed his plea to the jurisdiction No. 2, and urged as to his ground that the amended transfer was not proper, and the offense for which the defendant was placed on trial was not named in the transfer. The defendant filed his bill of exceptions. Brumley v. State, 11 Tex.Crim. App., 115; McDonald v. State, 7 Tex.Crim. App., 114; Donaldson v. State, 15 Tex.Crim. App., 25; Mitten v. State, 24 Tex.Crim. App., 349. Mann Trice, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
Hurt.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
HURT, Presiding Judge.

Plea to the jurisdiction of the court was urged, because the transfer misnamed the accused, and recited the offense to be “gaming,” whereas the offense charged was in fact for keeping and exhibiting a gaming table and bank. An amended transfer was then filed, properly naming the accused, but which did not name the offense. A second plea to the jurisdiction was then urged, because of this omission to name the offense with which the accused was charged. It was proper to amend the certificate of transfer. It was unnecessary to name the accused on the minutes of the District Court, in noting the presentment of the indictment in that court, and it is not required to make entry on said District Court minutes of the offense charged. Code Crim. Proc., Arts. 415-417; Willson’s Crim. Proc., § 1943, for authorities; Tellison v. State, ante, p. 388. It is not controverted that [*391] the second transfer correctly trap scribes the minutes of the transferring court. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.