Case Name: Ex parte KING
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-11-06
Citations: 150 S.W. 905
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ex parte KING.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 150
Pages: 905–905

Head Matter:
Ex parte KING.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 6, 1912.)
1. Bail (§ 51 ) — Amount—Discretion of Coubt.
There was no abuse of discretion in fixing bond of'accused, charged with assault with intent to kill, to await the grand jury’s action, at $3,000, _ where his witnesses testified that he had friends, who would probably go on his bond, who were worth over $100,000; accused having been properly bound over under the evidence.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. §§ 209, 210, 212; Dec. Dig. § 51. ]
2. Criminal Law (§ 1148 ) — Bond.
To justify an appellate court in interfering with the action of a district judge in fixing the amount of bond to bind accused over to await the action of the grand jury, a clear abuse of the court’s power in fixing the amount must be shown.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law.^Cent. Dig. §§ 3050-3052; Dec. Dig. §
Appeal from District Court, Mitchell County ; James L. Shepherd, Judge.
Application by W. T. King for habeas corpus. From an order granting the writ, and fixing accused’s bond to answer over at a certain sum, he appeals.
Affirmed.
F. G. Thurmond, of Colorado, Tex., for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst Atty. Gen., for the State.
Eor other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
Complaint was filed against relator in 'the justice court, charging him with assault with intent to- murder. Upon a hearing he was bound over to await the action of the grand jury, and his bond fixed in the sum of $6,000. He sued out a writ of habeas corpus before Hon. James L. Shepherd, District Judge, who granted the writ, and, upon hearing the evidence offered, reduced the bond, and fixed it at- the sum of $3,000. From this order, appellant prosecutes this appeal.
The evidence amply supports the judgment binding appellant over to await the action of the grand jury, and as appellant's witness on cross-examination stated appellant had friends, who would probably go on his bond, worth in excess of $100,000, we-cannot say the court erred in fixing the amount of bond. It would only be in a case where the evidence clearly showed an abuse of the court's power in fixing the amount of bail to be required for the appearance of a defendant in his court we would feel authorized to disturb his judgment. If it should be made to appear that applicant cannot in fact give this bond, we are satisfied, on a proper showing, the court will fix the amount in such sum as the evidence justifies.
The judgment is affirmed.