
    LAWLEY v. STATE.
    No. 13299.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 18, 1931.
    Robert Cralle, of Groesbeek, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Canton, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J. .

Appellant was held in contempt by the judge of the Fifty-Fourth district court at Waco. From the judgment appellant gave notice of appeal, and entered into recognizance to abide the judgment of this court. On October 15th an opinion was delivered affirming the judgment. No briefs either for the state or appellant were furnished on original submission.

Appellant now presents a motion for rehearing in which is incorporated many things which might be appropriate- to submit in a hearing on the merits in the trial court, but which absolutely have no place in a motion for rehearing.

We are concerned with one thing only in the motion, and that is the proposition that this court is without jurisdiction of the. appeal. No doubt exists as to the correctness of the proposition. An appeal does not lie from a judgment of contempt. Crow v. State, 24 Tex. 12; Ex parte Kilgore, 3 Tex. App. 249; Carter v. State, 4 Tex. App. 165; Borrer v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 63 S. W. 630; Borrer v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 63 S. W. 1133; Long v. State, 82 Tex. Cr. R. 403, 199 S. W. 619, 620, in which the following language is ■ found: “From a judgment for contempt this court can give relief only on writ of habeas corpus when the relator is in custody.” Pegram v. State, 72 Tex. Cr. R. 176, 161 S. W. 458. Many other eases will be found collated in Texas Jurisprudence, vol. 9, under §§ 45 and 48.

Our former opinion is withdrawn, and the appeal is dismissed.  