Case Name: BROWN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-01-24
Citations: 255 S.W. 438
Docket Number: No. 7361
Parties: BROWN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 255
Pages: 438–439

Head Matter:
BROWN v. STATE.
(No. 7361.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 24, 1923.
Appeal Reinstated and Opinion on Rehearing Oct. 31, 1923.)
1. Bail <&wkey;>70 — Appeal bond must be approved.
Where an appeal bond is not approved by either the sheriff or the judge who tried the case as required by Code Or. Proc. 1911, art. 918, as amended by Acts 36th Reg. (1919) c. ■18 (Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. Supp. 1922, art. 918), th.e appeal must be dismissed.
On Rehearing.
2. Criminal law <&wkey;595(IO) — Continuance for absence of witnesses held improperly refused.
In a prosecution for child and wife desertion, where the defense was that accused did not willfully desert his wife and child, but was justified on account of his wife’s infidelity and because the child was not his, it was error to .refuse a continuance for the absence of witnesses who would have given testimony in support of such defense, though relating to specific acts of misconduct, due diligence having been shown.
3. Husband and wife <&wkey;3!3 — Exclusion of message from deserted wife to alleged paramour held improper in desertion case.
In a prosecution for child and wife desertion, where the defense was that the defendant was justified on account of his wife’s infidelity and because the child was not his, evidence of the contents of a letter by defendant’s wife after the separation, in which she sent a message to one with whom she was charged with having been intimate, held improperly excluded.
4. Husband and wife <®=^313 — Exclusion of evidence as to infidelity of defendant’s wife held improper in desertion case.
In a prosecution for child and wife desertion, wherein the defense was that desertion was justified by the wife’s infidelity and because the child was not defendant’s, it was error to exclude testimony that men were going to defendant’s house in his absence.
5. Criminal law <&wkey;>772(6) — Defendant held entitled to instruction as to affirmative defense in prosecution for desertion.
In a prosecution for desertion of wife and child, wherein the defense was that the desertion was justified by the wife’s infidelity and because the child was not defendant’s, defendant was entitled to an affirmative charge on his defense.
<¡&wkey;For other cases see same topic and KEÍ-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
Appeal from Kaufman County Court; W. P. Williams, Judge.
Jim Brown was convicted of child and wife desertion, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded on rehearing.
Cooley & Crisp, of Kaufman, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
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 918, C. C. B., as amended by Acts 36th Leg. (1919), c. 18 (Vernon's Ann. Code Cr. Proc. Supp. 1922, art. 918); Sweak v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 373, 239 S. W. 615; Smith v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 436, 244 S. W. 511.
For the defect in the bond, the appeal must be dismissed.