Frost v. State

26 S.W. 412, 33 Tex. Crim. 347, 1894 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 111
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided May 9, 1894·No. No. 293.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appeal herein was prosecuted from judgment final rendered against appellant, as surety, upon a forfeited bail bond. The bond was taken and approved by a justice of the peace, before whom the prosecution was pending against the principal, on a charge of embezzlement, to await the action of the grand jury. A bill of indictment was duly presented, and bond forfeited.

The scire facias recited, that the principal entered into the bond before the District Court on September 5, 1891. The bond offered and admitted in evidence was taken before, and approved by, the justice of the peace. Objection was urged because of this variance, which was by the court overruled, and bill duly reserved. The point was well taken, and should have been sustained. Brown et al. v. The State, 28 Texas Crim. App., 297; Holt v. The State, 20 Texas Crim. App., 271; Avant v. The State, just decided (ante, p. 312).

The judgment is reversed and cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Judges all present and concurring.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Frost v. State, 26 S.W. 412, 33 Tex. Crim. 347, 1894 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 111 (Tex. 1894).

26 S.W. 412 (Frost v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cooper v. State
55 S.W.2d 99 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1932)