Case Name: BATES et al. v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-11-25
Citations: 283 S.W. 794
Docket Number: No. 9537
Parties: BATES et al. v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 283
Pages: 794–795

Head Matter:
BATES et al. v. STATE.
(No. 9537.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 25, 1925.
Reinstated and Dismissed May 5, 1926.)
Harper, Sturgeon & Lewis, of Dallas, for appellants. .
Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.

Opinion:
BAI-CER, J.
This is an appeal by the appellants from a final judgment of the district court of Falls county on a forfeiture of a bail bond. The appeal bond in this case is conditioned that the appellants "shall prosecute their appeal with effect, and, in case the judgment of the Supreme Court or the Court of' Civil Appeals shall be against them, tliey shall perform its judgment, sentence, and decrees," etc. This -bond is wholly insufficient to give this court jurisdiction of the appeal, and for that reason the appeal will have to he dismissed. Anderson et al. v. State, 74 Tex. Cr. R. 67, 166 S. W. 1164.
It might be proper at this time to call the attention of the appellants' attorneys to the fact that this case is not briefed in accordance with the rules governing civil eases, which are binding on this court in cases of this kind. Branch Ann. Penal Code, § 608 and 609.
The appellants are hereby granted 15 days in which to prepare and file a proper bond in this case; otherwise this order will be made final.
For the reason above stated, the appeal is dismissed.
On Reinstatement for Further Consideration.
On November 25, 1925, this case was dismissed on account of a defective appeal bond, which has since been supplied, and the case is now reinstated and before us for further consideration.
In the order dismissing this case, we called the attention of appellants' pounsel to' the fact that same had not been briefed in accordance with the rules governing civil cases. Notwithstanding this fact, there has been no effort to show that the record, as presented, in so far as it relates to hriefing, does not reflect the true status of the record as made. There is nothing in the record to show that any brief, or copies of the brief, were filed in the trial court within the time and in keeping with the requirements of the rules pertaining to civil cases, nor is it briefed in this court in keeping with the rules applicable to civil cases. We are therefore, on this account, without authority of law to pass upon the merits of the case. Swim v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 576, 218 S. W. 761 ; Davis v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 313, 226 S. W. 409; Grammer v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 187, 230 S. W. 165; Wimberly v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 652, 271 S. W. 60S; Walker et al. v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 176, 272 S. W. 462.
For the reasons above mentioned, and under the authorities above cited, this appeal is ordered dismissed.
PEE CURIAM. The foregoing opinion by the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.