Case Name: Alfred Robinson et al. v. The State
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 118
Docket Number: 
Parties: Alfred Robinson et al. v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 118–119

Head Matter:
Alfred Robinson et al. v. The State.
Articles 738<z and 7386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows: “ An appeal may be taken, either by the State or defendant, from every final judgment rendered upon a recognizance, bail-bond, or bond taken for the prevention or suppression of offenses, and the proceedings in such cases shall be regulated by the same rules which are prescribed in civil suits, except that no security shall be required of the State.
“ Judgment final, in the cases mentioned in the preceding article, may be also taken to the Supreme Court by writ of error, as in civil suits, except that the defendant shall, in all cases, be required to.give bond to comply with the judgment or order of the Supreme Court.” (Paschal’s Dig., Arts. 3203, 3204, Note 774.)
These two articles compared; and Held, That where there is no bond, the writ of error will be dismissed.
Ebbob from Guadaloupe. The case was tried before Hon. A. W. Tebbebb, one of the district judges.
Three final judgments had been rendered in the District Court of Guadaloupe county upon the bail-bond of Robinson and sureties. Robinson and sureties prosecuted error. On the 29th October, 1860, the Attorney General moved to dismiss the eases for want of writ-of-error bond in' each case, as required by arts. 788a and 738h of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Paschal’s Dig., Arts. 3203,- 3204.)
Ro record of either case has been furnished to the Reporter.
W. 8. Oldham, for plaintiffs in error,
argued the merits of the case, to show that there was a discrepancy between the name of “Bute” Robinson, in the indictment, and Alfred Robinson, in the bail-bond.
M. J). Graham, Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
Bell, J.
—The motion by the Attorney General, to dismiss the writ of error in this case, must be sustained.
Art. 738a, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, provides, that appeals may be taken, either by the State or defendant, from every final judgment rendered upon a recognizance, bail-bond, &c.
Art. 7386, of the same Code, provides, that judgment final in the cases mentioned in art. 738a may be also taken to the Supreme Court by writ of error, as in civil suits, except that the defendant shall in all cases be required to give bond to comply with the judgment or order of the Supreme Court.
There being no bond in this case, the writ of error is
Dismissed.
[This opinion applies also to cases 2328 and 2329 between the same parties.—J. H. B.]