Case ID: tex-crim_97/html/0488-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAWKINS, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex Parte Tom Burrell.
    No. 8751.
    Decided June 4, 1924.
    Habeas Corpus — Reduction of Bond.
    Where the record on appeal disclosed that relator was held by the sheriff under two capiases issued from the Justice Court based upon complaint filed therein one charging that relator unlawfully transported intoxicating liquor and the other charging him with the possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, and bail had been fixed by the sheriff in each case in the sum of $500, and the district judge declined to reduce said bail, from which an appeal.is taken to this court, the judgment below is affirmed.
    
      Appeal from the District Court of Polk, in vacation. Tried below before the Honorable J. L. Manry.
    Appeal from an order of the district judge refusing the reduction of bail.
    The opinion states the case.
    No brief on file for appellant.
    
      Tom Garrard, Attorney for the State, and Grover C. Morris, Assistant Attorney for the State.
   HAWKINS, Judge.

The record discloses that relator was held by the sheriff under two capiases issued from the Justice Court based upon complaint filed therein, one charging that relator unlawfully transported intoxicating liquor and the other charging him with the possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale. Bail had been fixed by the sheriff in each case in the sum of $500. Relator sought a reduction in bail in the two cases by habeas corpus proceedings before the Honorable J. L. Manry, Judge of the 9th Judicial District. After a hearing thereon said judge declined to reduce the bail but again fixed it at $500 in each ease.

We have not been favored with a brief from relator and are therefore not apprised of his views relative to the matter, but we have been unable to find anything in the record which would indicate that the action of the judge was arbitrary or that the amount of bail fixed by him was excessive.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.