La Rose v. State

• Decision Date: 22 November 1890
• Citation: 15 S.W. 33
• Parties: LA ROSE <I>et al.</I> v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

15 S.W. 33

LA ROSE et al. v. STATE.

Court of Appeals of Texas.

November 22, 1890.

Appeal from district court, Ellis county; ANSON RAINEY, Judge.

M. B. Templeton, for appellant. W. L. Davidson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

WHITE, P. J.

La Rose was indicted in the district court of Ellis county, for bigamy. The term of court at which he was indicted adjourned on the 26th day of April, 1889. Watt, the sheriff of said county, swears that, after the adjournment of the court, he approved the bail-bond of the defendant on the same day that the court adjourned. A sheriff can take and approve a bail-bond in vacation, or after adjournment of the term. Code Crim. Proc. art. 305. The court was not in session when the bond was approved. Gragg v. State, 18 Tex. App. 296. Carroll v. State, 6 Tex. App. 463. Ake v. State, 4 Tex. App. 126. There is no evidence that the bond was signed and executed before the court adjourned and before it was approved by the sheriff. Holt v. State, 20 Tex. App. 272; Faubion v. State, 21 Tex. App. 494, 2 S. W. Rep. 830. The circumstances of the case do not warrant such presumption. It is from the judgment final, forfeiting said bail-bond, that this appeal is taken, and the contention is that said bond was and is wholly insufficient as a bail-bond for bigamy, and that, the bond being insufficient, a judgment upon it is unauthorized and void, and cannot be permitted to stand. The bond is in the ordinary form and contains most of the statutory requisites. It does not describe the offense as "bigamy," which was all the description of the crime essential or necessary to be given, since bigamy is an offense eo nomine, and expressly defined by our Code. Instead of describing the offense by its statutory name, the offense is described in said bond as follows, viz.: "Lucian La Rose stands lawfully charged by indictment filed in the district court of Ellis county, on the _____ day of ____, 1889, with the offense of _____, on the 6th day of November, 1888, unlawfully marrying Lilla Prince, he, the said Lucian La Rose, then and there having a wife living." The third requisite of a bail-bond enumerated by statute is that "the offense of which the defendant is accused be distinctly named in the bond, and that it appear therefrom that he is accused of some offense against the laws of the state." Code Crim. Proc. art. 288, subd. 3. Where the offense is defined by statute, the general name is sufficiently descriptive of it. If it is not so defined, then...