O'Neal v. State

35 Tex. 130
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1872
StatusPublished

This text of 35 Tex. 130 (O'Neal v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
O'Neal v. State, 35 Tex. 130 (Tex. 1872).

Opinion

Ogden, J.

The question of a variance between the

scire facias and the bail bond was fully considered, and we think correctly settled, in the case of The State v. Cox, 25 Texas, 406; and that case settles the question in this case adversely to the plaintiff in error.'

We think the other objection is also untenable, or rather not supported by the facts. The plaintiff complains that the “bail bond does not name the time and place when and where the accused was to appear, and does nowhere specify the name of the countybut on reference to the bond, we find that the defendant was bound to “appear at the next term of the District Court of Henderson county.” This is a sufficiently specific compliance with Article 2732, Paschal’s Digest, to sustain a judgment on a forfeited bail bond.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
35 Tex. 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneal-v-state-tex-1872.