
    STATE ex rel. NICHOLSON, County Judge, et al. v. HUMPHRIES, District Judge, et al.
    (No. 4327.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 16, 1917.)
    Prohibition <@=313 — Scope of Review.
    Where application for writ of prohibition to prevent interference with enforcement of statute was granted and temporary writ issued, but before the hearing on the permanent writ was given the statute had been declared void, it was unnecessary to consider the questions involved on the application, and it would be dismissed.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Prohibition, Cent. Dig. § 62.]
    Prohibition by the State, on the relation of A. 0. Nicholson, County Judge, and others, against Hugh L. Humphries, District Judge, and others.
    Proceeding dismissed.
    E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, J.

This proceeding was filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals by A. C. Nicholson, county judge of Collingsworth county, and others, charging that Hugh L. Humphries, judge of the district court of the Forty-Seventh judicial district of Texas, had issued a writ of injunction restraining the relators, including the county judge, county attorney, and sheriff of Collingsworth county, from proceeding against Wiles & Cunningham, a partnership composed of Dick Wiles and John Cunningham, for violating the provisions of chapter 74 of the Acts of the Thirty-Third Legislature, known as the “Pool Hall Law”; said relators seeking from this court a writ of prohibition commanding the said Hugh L. Humphries, judge of the Forty-Seventh judicial district, to take no further proceeding in the said injunction matter.

On' presentation of the petition to this court on December 8, 1916, an order was issued as follows:

“The clerk will file and docket this petition. The writs prayed for are granted. The clerk will at once issue them as prayed, and also give notice to said parties to appear before this court in open session on January 3, 1917, to show cause why said parties should not be prohibited and said writs and older should not be perpetuated and made final. A. C. Prendergast, Presiding Judge.”

At a later date of the present term, in the case of Lyle v. State, which is reported in 193 S. W. 680, chapter, 74 of the Acts of the Thirty-Third Legislature was declared void, and in consequence of this decision it becomes unnecessary to consider the application in this case or further discuss any questions of practice involved.

It is directed that the order made in this cause December S, 1916, and copied above, be set aside, and this proceeding dismissed from the docket of this court.  