Legal Opinion

Stroube v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided May 17, 1899No. 1614PublishedCited by 14 opinions

A motion was made by defendant to quash the indictment upon the ground that the United States courts have exclusive jurisdiction over the offense of counterfeiting; and also a motion in arrest of judgment upon the same ground. Both motions were overruled. We take the following statement from the brief of counsel for appellant, to wit: About the 3d day of December, 1898, Deputy Sheriff F. H. Hargon arrested defendant on suspicion that he was making counterfeit money.

Read the full summary

A motion was made by defendant to quash the indictment upon the ground that the United States courts have exclusive jurisdiction over the offense of counterfeiting; and also a motion in arrest of judgment upon the same ground. Both motions were overruled. We take the following statement from the brief of counsel for appellant, to wit: About the 3d day of December, 1898, Deputy Sheriff F. H. Hargon arrested defendant on suspicion that he was making counterfeit money. The arrest was made about three o’clock in the morning, it being quite cold at that time. Defendant was taken to the sheriff’s…

1Opinion of the Court

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of counterfeiting. He moved in arrest of judgment, because, under the Constitution of the United States the Federal courts alone have jurisdiction of this offense. The law has been so long settled contrary to this contention that we deem it unnecessary to discuss this question. Congress has expressly reserved and recognized the jurisdiction of State courts over counterfeiting. Ex Parte Geisler, 50 Fed. Rep., 411; Martin v. State, 18 Texas Crim. App., 224; 7 Am. and Eng. Enc. of Law, pp. 878, 879, and especially note 2 on page…

2Cited by14 opinions

  1. In Re DixonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  2. Haile v. HoltzclawTexas Supreme Court · 1967
  3. Ex Parte GilmoreCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1920
  4. Upton v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1929
  5. Schade v. StewartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API