Marshall v. State

70 S.W. 550, 44 Tex. Crim. 273, 1902 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 139
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 19, 1902
DocketNo. 2555.
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 70 S.W. 550 (Marshall v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Marshall v. State, 70 S.W. 550, 44 Tex. Crim. 273, 1902 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 139 (Tex. 1902).

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the justice court, and prosecuted his appeal to the criminal district court. Motion" was made by the district attorney to dismiss the appeal, because the bond was not in compliance with the statute. The statute requires the party prosecuting such appeal to enter into bond conditioned, among other things, that he will make his personal appearance before the “next term” of the court to which he prosecutes his appeal. The bond executed was conditioned that he make his personal’appearance “at the present regular term,” instead of “at the next regular term.” The motion to dismiss was sustained. The case of Fentress v. State, 16 Texas Crim. App., 79, is in point and decisive of this question against appellant. Dn the authority of that case, the judgment herein is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Parroccini v. State
234 S.W. 671 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1921)
Golden v. State
146 S.W. 945 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1912)
Staten v. State
141 S.W. 525 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1911)
Walker v. State
72 S.E. 531 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1911)
Basquez v. State
119 S.W. 861 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
70 S.W. 550, 44 Tex. Crim. 273, 1902 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marshall-v-state-texcrimapp-1902.