Scarborough v. State
| Citation | 20 S.W. 584 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
| Decision Date | 26 November 1892 |
| Parties | SCARBOROUGH v. STATE. |
Appeal from county court, Wood county; V. B. HARRIS, Judge.
D. C. Scarborough was convicted of drunkenness in a public place. From a judgment affirming the conviction, he appeals. Affirmed.
H. M. Cates, for appellant. R. L. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This cause is brought to this court on appeal from the action of the county court of Wood county, dismissing the appeal taken from a judgment rendered against appellant in the justice's court of precinct No. 7, of Wood county, for the offense of drunkenness in a public place. The trial was had on the 21st day of May, 1892, and, after conviction, defendant filed his appeal bond, as required by law, which was defective in the following particulars: (1) It did not recite the number of the case; (2) it recited the judgment was rendered on the 28th, instead of the 21st, of May; (3) it was not signed by the defendant.
1. Conceding the bond to be defective, defendant filed another appeal bond within the time allowed, which the county attorney objected to in the county court, and the objection was sustained, and the appeal dismissed, and now brought before us for revision. After a careful examination, we think the action of the county court is correct. The first bond was fatally defective, because not signed by the defendant. While it is not necessary that the signature of the appellant should be signed at the end of the bond, it should certainly be signed somewhere, that judgment be entered against defendant and his sureties in case of forfeiture. Article 859, Code Crim. Proc.; Taylor's Case, 16 Tex. App. 514; Watson's Case, 20 Tex. App. 383.
2. The misrecital of the date of the judgment is also a fatal objection. The judgment appealed from was rendered on the 21st of May, 1892, but the appeal bond states it to be rendered on the 28th. The number of the suit is not stated in the bond. The judgment must be identified beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no way of identifying this judgment. "It is possible that two judgments may be rendered the same day, between the same parties, and for the same amount; but, if the officer has done his duty, they cannot have the same number." Railway Co. v. Stanley, 76 Tex. 420, 13 S. W. Rep. 480; Edwards v. Allen, (Tex. App.) 17 S. W. Rep. 1074.
3. The second bond is also fatally defective in being more onerous than required by law, the bond requiring the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Laird v. State
...44 Tex. Cr. R. 595, 73 S. W. 398. If such bond be not signed by the principal, it is void. Price v. State, 12 Tex. App. 235; Scarborough v. State, 20 S. W. 584; Tierney v. State, 31 Tex. One fair criterion for determining whether a recognizance or bail bond is sufficient would be if upon a ......
-
Thielen v. State
...him. This, in our opinion, is a sufficient identification of the case appealed from. This is not like the case of Scarborough v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 20 S. W. 584. In that case, not only the number of the case was lacking, but the recitation as to the date of the rendition of the judgment ......
- Rippetoe v. State