Case ID: sw_138/html/0109-01.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

BARROW v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 24, 1911.)
    Bail (§ 67) — Appeal Bonds — Sufficiency.
    A bond on appeal from a conviction in justice court is insufficient, warranting dismissal of the appeal, if it does not bind accused to appear at any particular place.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. § 284; Dec. Dig. § 67.]
    Appeal from Denton County Court; S. H. Hoskins, Judge.
    • James Barrow was convicted of simple assault, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    S. M. Bradley, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PRENDERGAST, J.

Appellant was tried and convicted in the justice court of precinct No. 8 of Denton county, Tex., on October 20, 1910, of a simple assault, and fined 85.

Seventy-six days thereafter he filed an appeal bond and attempted to ' appeal the ease to the county court. In the county court the county attorney made a motion to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the appeal bond was insufficient, in that it does not bind the defendant to appear at any particular place. Upon the authority of Russell v. State, 84 S. W. 589, this motion was properly sustained, and the ease properly dismissed from the county court. The appeal bond in the Russell Case, supra, is precisely, in this respect, the same as the bond in this case.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.