
    Ex parte WILLIAMS et al.
    (No. 10126.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 3, 1926.)
    Mandamus <&wkey;3l— Court of Criminal Appeals . cannot compel district judge to hear and try issues' presented by application for writ of habeas corpus and return, in absence of final judgment (Const, art. 5, § 5).
    Court of Criminal Appeals cannot, in view' of Const, art. 5, § 5, compel district judge by mandamus to hear and try issues presented by application for writ of habeas corpus and return to secure release of defendants charged as accessories to murder, in absence of a final judgment. - . .
    Petition for mandamus, to compel the Dis-' trict Judge of Criminal District No. 1 of Dal-' las County to hear arid try,.issues presented by application for writ of habeas corpus and, return to secure release of Agnes Williams, and another, charged'as accessories tp crime of murder.
    Petition denied.
    G. W. Lindsey, of Dallas, for appellants.
    Sam D.' Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

It appears that the re-lators, by complaint in the justicfe court, were charged as accessories to the crime of murder; that they made application to Hon. Felix D. Robertson, judge of the criminal district court No.,1 of Dallas county, for'a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted and made returnable on the 20th of February. It seems that, upon the date of the return, the hearing upon the application was postponed. The relief sought is that this court issue a writ of mandamus commanding the district judge of the criminal district court No. 1 of Dallas county to hear and try the issues presented by the application for a writ of habeas corpus and return.

Power is conferred upon -this court by the Constitution, art. 5, § 5, and by statute, to issue writs necessary to enforce its jurisdiction. See 2 Verqon’s Tex. Crim. Stat. art. 69. The present application, we think, does not come within the scope of the power mentioned. In the absence of a final judgment from which an appeal would lie, the proceeding in question seems to be under the exclusive control- of the district court in which the applie¿tion for a writ of habeas corpus is pending. The precedents which are analogous are Ex parte Firmin, 131 S. W. 1116, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 222; Ex parte Quesada, 29 S. W. 473, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 116; Eaves v. Landis, 258 S. W. 1056, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 555.

The petition is denied. 
      <@z»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     