Case ID: sw_195/html/0862-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PRENDERGAST, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BOSTICK v. STATE.
    (No. 4496.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 30, 1917.)
    1. Affidavits <@==>5 — Who May Takb — Bystander’s Bili>-Verification Before Attorney.
    A purported bystander’s bill of exception sworn to before the defendant’s attorney can in no circumstances be considered.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Affidavits, Cent. Dig. §§ 18-27.]
    2. Bail <®=o94 — Appeal—Finality of Determination.
    Where defendant 'was charged with gaming, and a judgment forfeiting his bail bond was entered, but there was no final judgment, and the bystander’s bill of exceptions was incomplete, being sworn to before, defendant’s attorney, there was nothing for review.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. §§ 418-423.]
    Dood Bostick was charged with gaming, and his bail bond was forfeited, and to review such action he brings certain proceedings which the State moves to dismiss.
    Proceedings dismissed.
    E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PRENDERGAST, J.

This case is an anomaly. The papers, if in a condition to be considered, would show that on March 12, 1917, the grand jury of Rockwall county indicted appellant for gaming, and that by the proper orders the indictment was transferred and duly filed in the county court on March 15th. On April 16th there appears a judgment nisi against appellant and his sureties on a forfeiture of his bail bond. The sheriff certifies that he holds appellant in jail under the authority of an alias capias. The only other matter shown in the papers is a purported bystander’s bill, signed by three persons and sworn to before appellant’s attorney as a notary public. There is no certificate by the clerk of the county court, or other court, attesting the validity of any of the papers filed herein. It is unnecessary to state appellant’s pretended bill of exceptions. It being sworn to before appellant’s attorney, under no circumstances could it be considered if everything else was regular. There is no final judgment and nothing in this proceeding that can he reviewed by this court The Assistant Attorney General’s motion therefore to dismiss the proceedings is granted.

Proceedings dismissed. 
      <®=»For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes