
    HERENZ v. STATE.
    (No. 4766.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 19, 1917.)
    Criminal Law <s=^101 (4) — Transfer of Causes — Proceedings.
    Under Code Cr. Proe. 1911, arts. 483-485, providing that, upon the filing of any indictment in the district charging an offense over which such court has no jurisdiction, the judge shall transfer it to such inferior court as may have jurisdiction, and that the clerk shall deliver the indictments in all causes transferred, together with all papers relating thereto, to the proper court, and accompany each case with a certificate of all proceedings in the district court, the county court had no jurisdiction of a prosecution, where the transcript of the order from the district court, though showing that the district court inspected an indictment and reached the conclusion that such court did not have jurisdiction, because it was a misdemeanor, failed to show that any indictment against defendant was ever presented- in that court, but, on the contrary, showed the presentation of an indictment against another party.
    Appeal from Lee County .Court; John H. Tate, Judge.
    August Herenz was convicted of aggravated assault and battery, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    August Herenz, in pro. per. E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for'the State.
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted in the county court of aggravated assault and battery; his punishment being assessed at a fine of $150 and 45 days’ imprisonment in the county jail.

A plea to the jurisdiction of the county court was interposed and overruled. We are of opinion that the exception to the transfer or attempted transfer from the district court to the county court is well taken. The transcript of the order from the district to the county court shows that there was begun and holden court in and for Lee county, which was in session at Giddings on the 23d of April, 1917; that on the 26th of April, 1917, the grand jury came into court and through their foreman delivered to the judge of the court the following indictment, to wit: “The State of Texas v. Lee Givins, Pile No. 1826” — and it was ordered by the court to be filed. On the same day an order was entered as follows:

“It appearing to the court, from an inspection of the indictment, that this court has not jurisdiction of this case, the same being a misdemeanor, and that the county court of Lee county, Tex., has jurisdiction - of the same, it is ordered that the said case be, and the same is, transferred to said county court of said county.”

This order was entered in the case styled “The State of Texas v. August Herenz.” Then follows the bill of costs and certificate of the clerk. These were all the orders entered. There nowhere appears that the grand jury ever presented an indictment against August Herenz in the district court. It does appear that the court inspected an indictment and reached the- conclusion that he did not have jurisdiction, because it was a misdemeanor; but the minutes fail to show that such' indictment was ever presented in that court. Under the authorities we are of opinion this motion is well taken. See articles 483, 484, and 485, O. O. P., and the authorities collated in Vernon’s O. C. P. under said articles. See, also, Bird v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 205, 91 S. W. 791; Austin v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 8, 40 S. W. 724; Brumley v. State, 11 Tex. App. 115. The exceptions should have been sustained.

The judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded. 
      (g^>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     