McGee v. State

Citations

• 11 Tex. Ct. App. 520

Syllabus

<p>1. Bail-Bond.— When the offense of which the principal obligor is accused is named in the bail-bond, and it appears therefrom that he is accused of an offense against the laws of this State, it is not necessary that the bond shall disclose the mode of the accusation,—i. e,, whether it is by indictment, information, or otherwise.</p> <p>2. Same—Theft from a House.—Article 764 of the original Penal Code made theft from a house a felony irrespective of the value of the property taken, and as its penalty prescribed a penitentiary term of which the maximum was less than that prescribed for ordinary theft of property worth twenty dollars or more; but the repeal of that article in 1876 had no other effect than to subject theft from a house to the same punishment as that prescribed for ordinary theft. Since the repeal of said article, therefore, as well as prior thereto, a bail-bond designating theft from a house as the accusation against the principal offender conforms to the requirement that such a bond shall name an off ensé against the laws of thjs State.</p> <p>3. Eobfeitube.—If the court before which the principal obligor is bound to appear has no authority to require him to answer the charge against him, it has no power to adjudge a forfeiture of his bail-bond. See the opinion in extenso on this subject.</p> <p>4. Case Ovebbuled.— Wilson v. State, 25 Texas, 169, overruled in so far as it sustains the validity of a bail-bond which misstates the offense charged against the principal obligor.</p>