*1 attempted any facts in case that when rule supported con- corpus, show habeas brought here to be troversy regular brought channel of here in the have been could corpus. dispose habeas same decline appeal, we will an regular form men have two case we In this of a magistrate commission a before and manner cases, over were bound their felony, who fixed, at grand jury, and their bonds await being amount, here contended it not a reasonable men could said unreasonable. Whether fixed amounts were shown, the same but on is not such bonds make corpus was habeas magistrate application for order of the presented general alleging in merely judge, district same to a heard illegal writ terms restraint. reciting only that applicants, matter and remanded it, legally If understand opinion, applicants held. were gaming particular form of question whether gaming table alleged table to have been exhibited would be of this or A determination bank under our statute. entirely facts, require development a full Texas principle parte Roquemore, 60 Ex Rep., 282, by applicants in their motion. Crim. relied on original opinion, correctly disposed think the case fully every proposition and developed upon involved could and should brought route a trial here appeal. Rep. 52. parte Jarvis, of an Ex See Texas Crim. rehearing overruled. Myres
Eli v. The State. 19, No. 17665. Delivered 1935. June Appeal 30, Reinstated October 1935. Rehearing Denied December *2 The case. states the Hopkins, Denton, appellant.
R. H. for Lloyd Austin, Davidson, Attorney, of for State’s the State. Judge. LATTIMORE, rape; punishment, for Conviction years penitentiary. in the five are at confronted the threshold this case caption transcript. caption
defective in the states begun at a term of the holden district court County Denton, Texas, within and for the of 1934, on day February, 26th adjourned and which on April, 1934, following 21st on cause came proceedings transcript etc. The entire show that cause was tried at the Term of the mentioned,
For appeal the defect will dismissed. ON APPELLANT’S TO REINSTATE APPEAL. MOTION Judge. CHRISTIAN, having perfected, The record appeal is reinstated and its merits. the case considered Rayborn, rape by force. Eva indictment On was a Denton. student Teachers at night returning 1934; February, of the 7th of she was college library up from the auto- when drove According take her home. he could asked mobile and him testimony, advised that she would walk. How- she taking home, got finally she into ever, he insisted taking home, appellant drove Instead of him. car with away to some woods and assaulted her. She distance some fought appellant and until she resisted she testified accomplishing purpose. finally succeeded weak. taking jumped her back to town appellant was she When nearby reached ran into a house. As soon as she of the car Witnesses, reported the matter. house she prosecutrix, when reached her fact she testified boarding house, highly and that was nervous and excited physician, A examined she told them had occurred. who what occurrence, gave testimony *3 prosecutrix shortly corrob- after the organ penetrated. had been the fact that female orative of behalf, appellant that he had Testifying in his admitted own declared that it was with intercourse with consent. unnecessary the to in further detail it set
We deem opinion upon testimony the are of the that adduced trial. We is to the conviction. the evidence sufficient sustain of exception Bill No. to the action the of relates overruling subsequent application appellant’s for a court in application absent the that the continuance. It is averred in prior testify to the that three weeks witness would alleged about girl, witness, he, rape prosecuting the another prosecutrix together coupe in that rode a Ford lap Appellant attach the in the failed to sat the of witness. trial. to for a new affidavit of the absent witness his motion concluding in that the We think trial court was warranted that, materiality not as the of absent witness was such true, produce result another likely it a different (2d) quote State, Wiley trial. from v. 36 S. We in opinion rule laid down follows: “We are of that us, regard by predecessors should adhered to this be overruled, application is and that when an for continuance ground part of the of and the fact of refusal is made a such trial, not trial should the motion new that such new appel- court, reviewing within its unless the case this jurisdiction, the trial late that is satisfied to overruling amounted of motion for a new trial such determining instance first discretion in abuse his that, no testimony present had absent been likely.” have result would appellant’s 1-A concerned exception No. Bill of prosecutrix that she had part testimony objection to College of Industrial to from Teachers transferred funds have sufficient did not fact that she of the Arts because house pay transportation to exception nothing College. in the bill of find Teachers showing material. testimony was not reflected. Hence error objection to appellant’s exception to relate bills of Several general reputation of proof part on the of the State good. In testi- chastity prosecutrix for virtue Hence chastity prosecutrix. mony appellant questioned the general reputation right prove had the State, Bedgood good. 3 S. W. respect v. 1075; mentioned was W., Brooks v. 99; Boatwright State, (2d) v. S. State, W., 227 S. under- exception have not
There are other bills of which However, carefully examined they have been taken to discuss. thought present reversible error. and are not judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed. Appeals foregoing has of the Commission Appeals Judges of Criminal Court been examined approved by the *4 ON MOTION FOR REHEARING MORROW, complains Judge. Appellant Presiding para- appellate pass the third failure of sought pre- graph in which he of his motion for new expert testimony. matter was sent regarded one original overlooked in the ruling presented no error. in which the of the trial court is overruled.
Ex Parte E. J. Schexnayder. 4, 1935.
No. 18170. Delivered