Case Name: Jim Brown v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-10-31
Citations: 95 Tex. Crim. 568
Docket Number: No. 7361
Parties: Jim Brown v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 95
Pages: 568–571

Head Matter:
Jim Brown v. The State.
No. 7361.
Decided October 31, 1923.
1. —Child and Wife Desertion — Appeal Bond.
Where the appeal bond is not approved by the sheriff or the judge, the appeal must be dismissed. However, the record having been perfected, the case is heard upon its merits.
2. —Same—Continuance—Material Testimony.
Where there was nothing in the record to controvert the allegations of diligence and the materiality of the absent testimony to show that the desertion was not wilful, the application should have been granted.
3. —Same—Evidence—Letter.
Where, upon trial of wife and child desertion, defendant offered to introduce in evidence the contents of a letter written by appellant’s wife, after the separation, to appellant’s mother, in which she sent a message to appellant’s brother and which related to her infidelity, the same should have been admitted in evidence.
4. —Same—Infidelity of Wife — Evidence.
Defendant also should have been permitted to prove the conduct of the men who were working for him, relative to going to appellant’s house in his absence.
5. —Same—Charge of Court — Requested Charge.
Where, upon trial of wife and child desertion, the infidelity of defendant’s wife was an issue in the case, and the main charge failed to submit this defensive issue, a requested charge should have been submitted.
Appeal from the County Court of Kaufmann. Tried below before the Honorable W. P. Williams.
Appeal from a conviction of wife and child desertion; penalty, a fine of $50.00 and one year confinement in the county jail.
The opinion states the case.
Cooley & Crisp for appellant.
On question of infidelity of wife, Janak v. State, 246 S. W. Rep., 1039.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
— Appellant was convicted of a misdemeanor from which he appeals. He seeks enlargement pending the same upon a bond which, as it appears from the record, is not approved either by the sheriff or the judge who tried the cause. Article 9.18, C. C. P., Sweak v. State, 91 Texas Crim. Rep., 372, 239 S. W. Rep., 615; Smith v. State, 92 Texas Crim. Rep., 436, 244 S. W. Rep., 511.
For the defect in the bond the appeal must be dismissed.
Dismissed.