
    KOEHAN et al. v. STATE.
    (No. 7401.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 7, 1923.
    Rehearing Denied March 7, 1923.)
    Criminal law <9=»l 144(5) — Lack of jurisdiction in county court at law not presumed.
    In the absence of an affirmative showing of want of jurisdiction by reason of absence of transfer from the county court to the county court at law, the Court of Criminal Appeals cannot assume that the trial was unauthorized, and indorsement on the filed papers would not control the presumption of regularity.
    Appeal from El Paso County Court, at Daw; J. M. Deaver, Judge.
    Charles Koehan and Leo Manning were convicted of a misdemeanor theft, and they appeal.
    Affirmed.
    A. T. Fo-lsom and R. B. Daniel, both of El Paso, for appellant's.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The conviction is for theft, a misdemeanor. The record is before ns without statement' of facts or bills,of exceptions. In his brief, appellant contends that there is fundamental error, in that the information was filed in the county court of El Paso county and the trial was had in the EX Paso county court at law, and that there was no .order made by the county court transferring the case to the county court at law. Nothing upon this subject is found in the record.

The caption reads that “at a term of the county court at law * * * the following cause came on for trial, to wit.” Following this is the complaint set out in full and sworn to by W. E. Smith before the assistant county attorney. The complaint is indorsed: “Filed on the 29th day of March, A. D„ 1922. W. D. Greet, Clerk, County Court, El Paso County, Texas, By O. Arnada, Deputy.” Then follows the information with a similar indorsement.

The record is silent concerning any motions or bills of exceptions raising the question of jurisdiction of the court that tried the case. The transcript is certified to under the seal of the "county court at law, with the certificate reciting: “I, W. D. Greet, clerk of the El Paso county court at law, do hereby certify,” etc.

In the absence of some affirmative showing that there was a want of jurisdiction by reason of the absence of transfer, this court would not be warranted in assuming that the trial in the county court at law was unauthorized. The indorsement on the filed papers would not control the presumption of regularity, indulged in favor of the judgment of the court competent to try the offense. The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

As indicated in the original opinion, the certificate to the transcript signed W. D. Greet, describes him as “clerk of the El Paso county court at law,” and states, over the seal of the El Paso county court at law, that the transcript contains the proceedings in that court. The fact that' in some places in the record Greet signs the papers as clerk of the county court will not be taken as destructive of the judgment rendered by the county court at law as against the certificate and seal mentioned, fortified by the presumption that the county court at law would not have tried the ease in the absence of jurisdiction. Without some affirmative information from the record that' the case was not originally filed in the El Paso county court at law, the presumption that it was so filed cannot be ■ challenged for the first time on appeal against the record as presented here.

The motion is overruled. 
      other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     