Case Name: THOMASSON et al. v. STATE
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1954-05-14
Citations: 269 S.W.2d 956
Docket Number: No. 15544
Parties: THOMASSON et al. v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 269
Pages: 956–959

Head Matter:
THOMASSON et al. v. STATE.
No. 15544.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.
May 14, 1954.
On the Merits June 25, 1954.
Rehearing Denied July 9, 1954.
Davenport & Anderson, and John Davenport, Wichita Falls, for appellant, Thomas Charles Thomasson.
James T. Montgomery, Wichita Falls, for appellant, Raymond Eaton.
Jimmy Castledine, Wichita Falls, for ap-pellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
On March 9, 1954, the District Court of Wichita County adjudged Thomas Charles Thomasson and Raymond Eaton to be delinquent children and committed them to the State Training School.
The appellants have filed an application in this court requesting us to set a reasonable supersedeas bond in order that they may be released pending appeal.
Under provisions of the juvenile statute, Article 2338-1, Sec. 21, R.C.S., an appeal shall not suspend the order of the Juvenile Court unless that Court shall so order. The same section of the statute provides, however, that the appellate court may provide for a recognizance bond. Rule 364(f), T.R.C.P., provides: "Where the judgment is one involving the care or custody of a child, the appeal, with or without a super-sedeas bond, shall not have -the effect of suspending the judgment as to the care or custody of the child, unless it shall be so ordered by the court entering the judgment. However, the appellate court, upon a proper showing, may permit the judgment to be superseded."
Proceedings under the juvenile statute are civil, not criminal, in their nature. Article 2338-1, Sec. 13(3); Steed v. State, 143 Tex. 82, 183 S.W.2d 458.
The provisions thus made for bond in case of an appeal do not authorize the filing of a supersedeas bond as a matter of right but, to the contrary, contemplate the exercise of discretion by both the trial and the appellate courts. Espinosa v. Price, 144 Tex. 121, 188 S.W.2d 576, 160 A.L.R. 284.
The trial court heard the evidence and observed the demeanor of the boys involved. He was in better position than this court to determine whether it was for the best interest of the boys that they remain in custody rather than be released pending the appeal. In the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in ordering the appellants confined, we would not';be warranted in. .ordering.them released. .
Moreover, the record does not show that'any request has been made to the trial ' judge to' release the appellants on bond 'or otherwise. The statutes under consideration vest in the. trial court, and cumulatively . in the appellate courts, the discretion of allowing a defendant to be released on bond pending an appeal. Espinosa v. Price, supra.
We feel that we should not exercise our discretion to order the appellants released .when no-effort has been made to obtain the same relief from the trial judge, who is . familiar with all. the -facts and circumstances.
. The application to set bond is denied,