
    James Burdett v. The State.
    In oases of concurrent jurisdiction tho court first exercising jurisdiction rightfully acquires the control to the exclusion of the other.
    After indictment it is not competent for a justice of the peace to hear a complaint for tho same offense, and the certificate of conviction or acquittal before the justice in such a case is no bar to the indictment.
    The replication recognized in criminal pleading.
    Appeal from Travis. Indictment for assault and battery. The appellant pleaded to the indictment a former recovery before a justice of the peace for the same offense, and produced the certilicate of the justice in accordance with the statute in support of his plea. Tlie, State, by the district attorney, replied that the defense set np ought not to he allowed, because, he says, that before the justice of the peace who tried and convicted tlie said Burdett for said offense liad any jurisdiction of the same tho indictment in this case liad been filed in tlie District Court, &<:. To this replication tlie appellant demurred and tlie demurrer was overruled; whereupon a trial was had, a verdict and judgment against the appellant.
    
      II. W. Sublett, for appellant.
    
      Attorney General, for appellee.
   Lipscomb, J.

The only question presented is t.lie sufficiency of the bar of a former recovery as pleaded by the appellant. We have no doubt that the judgment of the District Court overruling tlie appellant’s demurrer to the replication of the State is correct. It is founded on tlie well-established rule that in a ease of concurrent jurisdiction in different tribunals the court first exercising jurisdiction rightfully acquires the control of the case io the exclusion of the other. After (lie indictment had been found tlie justice of the peace had no jurisdiction, and liis action thereon was a nullity. The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  