Case Name: HUNT v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1917-12-19
Citations: 200 S.W. 1090
Docket Number: No. 4776
Parties: HUNT v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 200
Pages: 1090–1090

Head Matter:
HUNT v. STATE.
(No. 4776.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 19, 1917.
On Rehearing, Feb. 6, 1918.)
1. Bail <§=>70 — Appeal Bond —Who Musi Approve.
An appeal bond filed in vacation in a criminal case must be approved by the district judge as well as the sheriff.
On Rehearing.
2. Criminal Daw @=>1090(13) — Matters Re-vie w able — U n verified Matters.
Alleged improper argument of state’s counsel, not verified by bill of exceptions or certified by the trial judge, cannot be reviewed.
Appeal from District Court, Titus County ; J. A. Ward, Judge.
Lon Hunt was convicted of burglary, and be appeals.
Affirmed.
Seb F. Caldwell, of Mt. Pleasant, for appellant. E. B. Hendricks1, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
Appellant was convicted of burglary; bis punishment being assessed at two years' confinement in the penitentiary.
The assistant Attorney General moves to dismiss the appeal. Appellant failed to enter into a recognizance, but filed an appeal bond, which seems not to be in compliance with the law. Court adjourned on the 14th day of July. The appeal bond was filed on the 10th of August. The law requires1 that the bond shall be approved when filed in vacation, as this bond was, not only by the sheriff of the county, but also by the district judge who tried the case. The sheriff did approve the bond, but the district judge did not. In order to make it a valid obligation the judge who tried the case must approve the bond in addition to the approval of the sheriff.
The motion will be sustained, and the appeal dismissed.