
    HAAK v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 23, 1910.)
    CRIMINAL Law ■(§ 1020) — Appeal —Appeal from County Court — Jurisdiction—Statutes.
    Under ’Code Cr. Proe. 1895, art. 85, giving the Court of Criminal Appeals appellate jurisdiction in all criminal cases, and article 86, providing that the preceding section shall not be construed to embrace cases appealed from justices’, etc., courts to the county court, and in which the judgment rendered or fine imposed by such court does not exceed $100, exclusive of costs, one convicted in a justice’s court of using abusive language, and on appeal to the county court found guilty and fined $5, could not appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2578-2580; Dec. Dig. § 1020.]
    Appeal from Eastland County Court; E. A. Hill, Judge.
    J. A. Haak was convicted of using .abusive language, and appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Allen D. Dabneyr Co. Atty., D. G. Hunt, and John A. Mobley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dee. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   RAMSEX, -j'.

This prosecution arose in justice • pr'écinct No. 1 of Eastland county, Tek.',' upon a complaint charging appellant With abusive language. A conviction being bad, an appeal was thereafter taken to the county court of Eastland county, where, on a trial, appellant was found guilty, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $5; and it is from this judgment that the appeal is sought to be perfected.

Article 86 of our Code of Criminal Procedure is as follows: “Tlie preceding section shall not be so construed as to embrace cases which have been appealed from justices’, mayors’ or other inferior courts, to the county court, and in which the judgment rendered or fine imposed by the county court shall not exceed one hundred dollars, exclusive of cost. In such cases the judgment of the county court shall be final.” This article of the statute has been applied to eases such as this without exception. Richardson v. State, 3 Tex. App. 69; Cherry v. State, 4 Tex. App. 4; Gerald v. State, 4 Tex. App. 308; Johnson v. State, 26 Tex. App. 395, 9 S. W. 611; Neubauer v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 513, 21 S. W. 363; Nelson v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 379, 26 S. W. 623; Goldman & Co. v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 436, 34 S. W. 122; Tison v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 360, 33 S. W. 872.

It is clear that appellant has no authority to prosecute his appeal to this court, and it is ordered that same be, and it is hereby, dismissed.  