Case Name: Will Brown v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1920-10-27
Citations: 88 Tex. Crim. 55
Docket Number: No. 5860
Parties: Will Brown v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 88
Pages: 55–60

Head Matter:
Will Brown v. The State.
No. 5860.
Decided October 27, 1920.
1. —Murder—Appeal Bond—Approval—Practice on Appeal.
Where the appeal bond was not approved by the trial judge, the same was insufficient. However, where the defect therein was corrected, the appeal is reinstated upon its merits.
2. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of murder and conviction of said offense, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the same, there was no reversible error.
3. —Same—Requested Charge—Bill of Exceptions.
Article 735, C. C. P., requires exceptions taken to the charge of the court to be in writing, and where the bill of exceptions did not present the matter in such a way that this court can review it, there was no reversible error.
4.—Same—Continuance—Second Application—Want of Diligence.
Where, defendant’s second application for continuance showed a want of diligence, there was no error in overruling same.
5.—Same—Charge of Court—Bill of Exceptions.
Where the bill of exceptions is signed with the statement that no objections to the charge were filed, the same cannot be considered on appeal, under Article 735, C. C. P.
6.-—Same—Evidence—Bill of Exceptions.
Where the bill of exceptions to certain testimony did not show that any answer was made to the question propounded, the same is too indefinite and cannot be considered on appeal.
7.—Same—General Reputation—Evidence—Rule Stated.
General reputation as to the conduct of the deceased in visiting the defendant’s home improperly, from talk in the community, was properly excluded by the court.
8.—Same—Evidence—Reputation.
Where, defendant had placed his reputation in issue for being a peaceable and quiet man, there was no error in permitting the State to show that he was convicted of aggravated assault recently.
9.—Same—Evidence—Reputation.
There was no error in excluding testimony that the defendant was extra obedient and kind and humble to white, people, the object of. such testimony not being shown.
10. —Same—Evidence—Bill of Exceptions—Practice on Appeal.
Where, upon trial of murder, while defendant’s witness was testifying on cross-examination, he was asked whether he knew whose pistol it was which was shown to him and which had been lying on table before counsel in the presence of court and jury, to which the witness answered he did not. This was not reversible error.
11. — Same—Evidence—Rebuttal—Husband and Wife.
Where defendant complained of his cross-examination by the State, with reference to family matters and troubles, but the record showed that these were not privileged communications and were known to other witnesses in the case, there was no reversible error to such cross-examination, the defendant having testified thereto in the first instance.
12. —Same—Suspended Sentence—Evidence—Reputation.
Where, defendant pleaded for a suspended sentence, there was no error . in permitting the State to show that he had been convicted of other offenses and misdemeanors.
13. —Same—Evidence—Practice in the District Court.
Under the Statutes the court was authorized to permit the introduction of State’s testimony after the general testimony had been closed and before argument begun.
Appeal from the District Court of Upshur. Tried below before the Honorable J. R. Warren.
Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, seven years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the ease.
Briggs & Briggs, for appellant.
Alvin M. Owsley, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
This is an appeal from a murder conviction from Upshur county.
An inspection of the record discloses that the appeal bond is insufficient in that it is not endorsed and approved by the trial judge. The statute requires that where notice of appeal is given to the court of Criminal Appeals a recognizance must be taken in term time, and in default of that a bond can be taken in vacation, but when so taken it must be approved by both the officer having him in charge and the trial judge who presided over the trial.
The bond is insufficient and the appeal must, therefore, be dismissed.
Dismissed.