
    Ex parte WERNET.
    (No. 9477.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 7, 1925.)
    I. Municipal corporations <&wkey;603 — City of Waco held to have power to establish fire limits.
    City of Waco, having over 5,000 inhabitants, under Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 1096d, may establish and maintain fire limits, and has power to define and abate nuisances.
    
      ,2. Municipal corporations &wkey;>603 — Ordinance forbidding accumulation of rubbish within fire limits held authorized.
    City of Waco, having 5,000 inhabitants, under Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ.' St. 1914, art. 1096d, has power to enact ordinance making-accumulation of boxes or other rubbish within fire limits in yards without roof or protection, misdemeanor, and subject to fine.
    Application of J. Wernet for habeas corpus.
    Writ denied.
    S. J. T. Smith, of Waco, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   ■MORROW, P. J.

Relator seeks, by way of habeas corpus, to obtain relief against the enforcement of a judgment of conviction rendered in the city court for violation of an ordinance enacted by the city of Waco, which ordinance reads thus:

“Art. 133. That the accumulation of boxes, barrels, or other rubbish within the fire limits of this city, in yards without roof or protection, is hereby prohibited and declared a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not less than one dollar ($1.09) nor more than ten dollars ($10.00).”

.No brief has been filed, hut the contention appears to be that the enactment of the ordinance is not within the scope of the city’s authority.- The terms of the charter of the city of Waco are not embraced in the record, nor is there reference to them. The city, however, is one of over 5,000 inhabitants, and is therefore in a class which is by express terms of the statute given authority to establish and maintain fire limits. See article 1096d, p. 5334, Vernon’s Sayles’ Tex. Oiv. Statutes 1914. It has also the power to define and abate nuisances.

|2] We have been referred to no authority and conceive of no reason that would condemn the ordinance in question as beyond the power of the city in the exercise of its legitimate functions. An elaborate discussion of the subject is not deemed desirable. Suffice i-t to say that the power of cities to pass ordinances such as that under consideration has received attention in several of the decisions of this court. See Gray v. Woodring Lumber Co., 82 Tex. Cr. R. 27, 197 S. W. 231: Chimene v. Baker, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 520, 75 S. W. 330; City of Brenham v. Holle & Seelhorst (Tex. Civ. App.) 153 . S. W. 345; Ex parte Cain, 56 Tex. Cr. R. 538, 120 S. W. 999. See, also, Ency. of Law & Proc. vol. 28, p. 741; 36 L. R. A. 599, note.

The writ is denied.  