The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-01-12
PEACE BOND STATUTE VOID.
JUSTICE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY
REFUSES TO RECOGNIZE m.
District Judge scott of McLennnn
Held II 10 he UnconstitutonA
and Gave His Reasons.

BRENNAN. Texas. January I1.-Under the
ruling of Justice w. r. Ewing OF Procinc.
No. 5 OF Washington county, the peace
bond is barred from use In his jurisdic-
i ton Several efforts have been made to
secure peace bonds from Justice EWING,
but on each occasion he has failed to ar
raign the person charged with an inten.
tion 10 commit an offense.
| The same ruling was made some time
ago in McLennan county by Hon. Sam
r. Scott, Judge OF the Fifty-fo judicial
district. which includes McLcnnan and
/ Falls counties Judge Scott Is one OF the
leading judges Of the State. He WAS APP
pointed TO the bench when the district was
created, Hon. James S. Hogg being at the
time governor He has. since been twice
elected. The question OF peace bond
came before him and he declared 1t I'M
constitutional. In speaking Of the question
Judge Scott said
Article L. section ii of the bill of rights
of the State constitution provides that
mo person for the same offense shall be
twice put in jeopardy of life and liberty.
Section Is OF the same authority provides
that the right of trial by jury shall re-
main inviolate." Now, II the peace bond
statute controvenes either of these pro-
visions, 1t is unconstitutional
Article ia of the code of criminal pro-
cedure provides that whenever magis-
trate is informed upon oath that an offense
ig about to be committed against the per-
son or property of another, or that any
person has threatened to commit an Of
Tense, it shall be his duty" etc. Article
lis of the same authority provides that
when the person SO accused shall be
brought before the magistrate he shall
hear proof, ETC., and II satisfied that there
is just reason to apprehend that the Of
Tense was intended to be committed, or
that the threat was seriously made he /
(thc magistrate) shall make an order /
requiring the accused to execute a bond /
etc.
Article 100 of the same authority pro-
vides that IL the defendant fail or refuse
to give bond, he shall be committed to the 4
jail of the county, or, IL there be no jail, 4
to The custody of the sheriff for the period l
of one year from the date of the first Or
der requiring such bond
1t will be observed that If the accused
fails to make the bond he is deprived of
his liberty and Is also denied the right of il
trial by jury, there being no provision for
the formation of jury in such cases.
If should threaten the life of B he
is apprehended and tried as above, and is
guilty and is required to make
bond. If for any cause he fails to make
bond he is committed to Jail for one year
and serves out the full term. No one will
contend but that he has been punished
for the threat second. that he was de-
prived of his liberty, and, third, that he
was denied the right of trial by jury.
Article 219 provides that for all INSIDE
an indictment or information
ha cd y,ith in fro,
the date of the commission of the offense,
and not after that time Now examine
Article 9G2. penal code, and you will see
hat it reads as follows: "If any person
hall threaten 10 take the life of any HUI
man being or to infiict upon any human
being Lny serious bodily injury, he shall
be punished by fine of not less than 500
nor more than $4,000, and in addition there
% he may be imprisoned in the county
all not exceeding one year" Now, sup
pose when has been released from jail
Ind before the two years expires, as pro-
'ided in article 100 code of criminal pro-
'edure, b twhose life was threatened)
goes before the county attorney or grand
ury and prefers charge against A under
lrticle 962. penal code, and he is arrested
md tried again, found guilty and the pun
shment assessed is one years confinement
n the county jail. or he is confined in jail
n default OF payment of the fine and A
hen serves again his time out. Is it
lot clear that has been twice put in
jeopardy of liberty for the identical same
ct, which violates section IA, article
I'LL of rights State constitution, and has
'een punished twice for the same act; and,
econd. that in the first proceeding the
ccused was denied the right of trial by
ury, hence violates section 10. article 1,
MI of rights. State constitution, there
ore the entire peace bond" statute is
'rossly unconstitutional and totally void.