Case Name: COLEMAN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1918-05-29
Citations: 204 S.W. 332
Docket Number: No. 5050
Parties: COLEMAN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 204
Pages: 332–332

Head Matter:
COLEMAN v. STATE.
(No. 5050.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 29, 1918.)
Escape <@=>2 — Defense.
Defendant, convicted of gambling, and fined and hired under convict bond, who left his employer’s place because he had nothing to eat, and did not know that his employer had made ar-rangejnents with third persons to feed him, was not guilty of a willful escape.
Appeal from Nacogdoches County Court; J. F. Perritte, Judge.
Leroy Coleman was convicted of escaping from his employer after he had been hired under convict bond, and he appeals.
.Reversed, and cause remanded.
Harris & Harris, of Nacogdoches, for appellant. E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
Appellant was arrested under article 338, P. C., for escaping from his employer after he had been hired under convict bond. Tire evidence shows he had been convicted for gambling and fined $10, and turned over to tbe county judge in default of tbe payment of tbe fine and costs, which amounted to about $20. Harrington hired appellant in Nacogdoches county and put him to work in Angelina county. Harrington left the camp or place where appellant was at work, and returned to his home in Nacogdoches. The same evening appellant left the camp and returned to Na-cogdoches, where he also resided. Upon reaching Nacogdoches he called Harrington over the phone and talked with him, telling him he was there and came after provisions ; that he had nothing to eat at the camp, and came home to secure provisions. Harrington says he made arrangements with a man and his wife who lived on his property in Angelina county to feed the defendant, but defendant was not aware of tliat fact, and, having nothing to eat, he returned to Nacog-doches. Harrington ordered him to return to Angelina county, which appellant failed to do. He testified that he purposed going in accordance with Mr. Harrington's wish, and to take some things from Mr. Harrington's house to the depot, but when ho went to Harrington's house he had gone to the train, and he, appellant, went to the train to return with Harrington, but reached the depot too late; the train had gone. Appellant l.hen went to another party for whom he had previously worked, and requested him to pay his fine; and' release him from this obligation to- Mr. narrington, and that he (appellant)' would work for him. Witness agreed to>do so- and got in- communication with the county judge. Tliis was acceptable to the county judge, and the amount would have been paid, but the county judge deferred the matter a-little while to see Harrington, in order to ascertain the amount of credit due appellant for tile time that Harrington' had him, so as-to be correct in receiving the balance of 'the-fine and costs- from the witness. The county judge and the witness both testified to-these-facts.
Without going into other questions suggested by bills of exception, we are of opinion-this evidence does not show a willful escape. That he left Mr. Harrington's place in. Angelina county is conceded, and it seems to be-also- not questioned that he left on account of the fact he had nothing to eat, and was not aware of the fact that Mr. Harrington had' made arrangements to feed him until his return. He so informed Mr. Harrington, upon, his arrival1 in Nacogdoches. We are of opinion, under this state of facts appellant should not have been convicted. See Carter v. State, 29 Tex. App. 5, 14 S. W. 350.
The judgment will be reversed,, and. (¡because remanded.