Moore v. State
37 Tex. 133
Opinion
The first objection to the bail bond is not well taken. The law does not require as great particularity in a bond taken by a committing magistrate, as it does in a bond taken before the District Court after indictment found. But under the authority of The State v. Russell, 24 Texas, 505, we must [134]*134decide that the magistrate, before whom the party had been committed, had no authority after the- adjournment of his court, to take and approve a bail bond. The judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause dismissed.
Reversed and dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Moore v. State, 37 Tex. 133 (Tex. 1873).
37 Tex. 133 (Moore v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Crumpecker v. State
79 S.W. 564 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1904)