Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 20 February 1907
• Parties: WILLIAMS et al. v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

103 S.W. 929

WILLIAMS et al. v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

February 20, 1907.

On Rehearing, March 22, 1907, and June 27, 1907.

Appeal from Eastland County Court; Chas. D. Spann, Judge.

Action by the state of Texas against Wyatt Williams and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed on rehearing, and prosecution dismissed.

Earl Conner, for appellants. F. J. McCord, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROOKS, J.

This appeal is from a final judgment on a bail bond. The record contains no statement of facts. There are two questions raised by the record.

1. That the bond was for $500, and that the judgment of the court below is against the principal for $500, and the sureties for $100 jointly and severally. Under article 491, Code Cr. Proc., the court was authorized to enter this judgment.

2. The second ground urged by plaintiff is that the bond is more onerous than the law requires. He contends that the bond requires the personal appearance of the defendant, and that in a misdemeanor case his personal appearance is not required—that is, the bond required the defendant to personally appear before the court, the plaintiff insisting that the word "personal" in the bond made it more onerous than the law required. We do not think this objection is tenable. Acts 1901, pp. 291, 292, c. 124. The bond under this law requires personal appearance before the court. Here we have the bond worded as follows: "Make his personal appearance before said court." The cases cited by appellant are under the old law, and only apply to appeals from justice courts.

Finding no error in the record, the same is hereby in all things affirmed.

On Rehearing.

This case was affirmed at a former day of this term, and now comes before us on rehearing. Plaintiffs in error insist that the terms of the judgment final demand the payment of $500 by Wyatt Williams, as principal, and $100 by the sureties, W. C. McGough and A. C. Williams. In our opinion, the judgment should be reformed, so as to provide for the payment of $500 by Wyatt Williams and all costs; and that the sureties, W. C. McGough and A. C. Williams, shall pay $100 and all costs, provided that, if Wyatt Williams shall pay the sum of $500 and all costs, the sureties, W. C. McGough and A. C. Williams, shall be discharged from any further liability on the judgment, and provided that, if Wyatt Williams does not pay the $500 and the said sureties pay the $100 and all costs, they shall be discharged from all further liability.

The motion for rehearing is granted, and the judgment is reformed and affirmed.

DAVIDSON, P. J., absent.

On Further Rehearing.

DAVIDSON, P. J.

The judgment in this case was reformed, and, as reformed, affirmed at the recent Dallas term of this court. The writer was absent, as shown by the opinion, at the time of this reformation and affirmance, and did not, therefore, participate in the decision. Since the rendition of that opinion, motion for rehearing has been presented and discussed by counsel, alleging grounds why the judgment should be reversed. The main proposition is that the bond is more onerous than the statute authorizes, and therefore cannot afford basis of forfeiture. From the record it appears that Wyatt Williams, the principal in the bond, was charged with a compounding crime; that is, compounding misdemeanor, which...