power to hear criminal cases only via transfers from other district courts. The opinion saying so is Lytle v. Halff.97 Lytle examined the constitutionality of a legislative act creating two district courts in Bexar County where there had only been one.98 Prior to the act, the only district court in Bexar County was the 37th District Court. The act created a new district court – the 45th. 99 Curiously, the act provided that “no grand jury should be organized in the forty-fifth district.100 The judge of the 37th District Court was directed to organize a grand jury at each term of court. 101 The grand jury was “to inquire into all offenses committed within the entire county.102 Indictments from the grand jury were to be “made returnable to the district court for the thirty-seventh judicial district.”103 The act authorized both of the district judges to transfer any cause – civil or criminal – to the other court.104
Lytle v. Halff, 12 S.W. 610 (Tex. 1889). Id. at 610. A losing civil litigant in the newly created district court appealed, contending the act was unconstitutional. Id. at 611. The party argued that the Texas Constitution impliedly prohibited the creation of multiple district courts in one county. Id. 99 The act divided Bexar County into two geographical regions – one region constituted the 37th District and the other region constituted the 45th District. Id. The two courts had concurrent jurisdiction in the entire county. Id. Residents of the 37th District would elect the 37th District Judge while residents of the 45th District would elect the 45th District Judge. Id. at 610, 612. 100 Id. at 610. 101 Id. 102 Id. Grand jurors were to “be selected and drawn from the body of the county.” Id. Indictments from the grand jury were to be “made returnable to the district court for the thirty-seventh judicial district.” 103 Id. 104 Id. 97 98
47
