
    Ex parte PERKINS.
    (No. 5226.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 16, 1920.)
    1. Municipal oorporations <&wkey;594(l) — Power to regulate pool halls depends on charter.
    The power a city has to prescribe the hours during which the business of pool halls may be conducted depends on its charter.
    2. Municipal corporations <&wkey;592(l) — City not empowered to prescribe hours during which pool halls licensed by state may be conducted.
    Under Rev. St. 1911, art. 872, constituting part of the charter of the city of Bowie, naming certain things that may be regulated by the city, the city is without power to prescribe the hours during which the business of poo] halls may be conducted, the charter excluding the idea it was intended to confer power to regulate amusements licensed by the state, and not named in the charter.
    Appeal from District Court, Montague County; John Speer, Judge.
    Habeas corpus on behalf of L. G. Perkins.
    Judgment against relator reversed, and his discharge ordered.
    Benson & Benson, of Bowie, for appellant.
    Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, J.

The relator was convicted for violation of an ordinance of tire city of Bowie, which limited the hours within which a pool hall might be kept open. Relief from custody is sought upon the ground that the ordinance was not within the authority of the city, and that the judgment, therefore, was void.

It is argued that the state having licensed pool halls, the city would not have power to prescribe the hours during which the business might be conducted. The power that the city has would depend upon its charter. Ex parte Brewer, 68 Tex. Cr. R. 887, 162 S. W. 1069. The charter of the city of Bowie on this subject is contained in article 872 of the Civil Statutes. That statute names certain things that may be regulated, but does not name pool halls, nor does it contain any general terms which would include pool halls. The terms in which the charter is framed, we think, exclude the idea that it was intended thereby to confer the power to regulate amusements licensed by the state and not named in the charter.

Since the conviction, pool halls, have been prohibited by a general statute. This, however, does not affect the present conviction.

From what we have said, it follows that the judgment denying the relator his liberty should be reversed, and the relator ordered discharged.  