Search Books

Revised Penal code and Code of criminal procedure Volume 1-2

Author Texas
Publisher RareBooksClub.com
📄 Viewing lite version Full site ›
🌎 Shop on Amazon — choose country
53.36 USD
🛒 Buy New on Amazon 🇺🇸 🏷 Buy Used — $60.13

✓ Usually ships in 2 to 4 weeks

Share:
Book Details
Author(s)Texas
ISBN / ASIN1236243951
ISBN-139781236243959
AvailabilityUsually ships in 2 to 4 weeks
Sales Rank99,999,999
MarketplaceUnited States 🇺🇸

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1889 Excerpt: ...pepiurgggy c l'0l.lIII8 ances 0 e accuse e cou o appea s w no n l n. c nell v. S. 13 App. 390. On appeal from a judgment refusing bail, or requiring bail claimed to be excessive, the record should show the pecuniary circumstances of the accused. Ruston v. Si 13 Alpp. 32;t;f'1parte Coldiiron. Id. 464. See a casg31'£'hic29i8t w;s heldfthat tge amount 0 ai requ re was excess ve. Ez parte Wilson pp.. rima acie, t e amount of five hundred dollars is not an excessive amount df bail upon a charge 'pf felonyd Whether excessive in fact, depends largely upon the pecuniary condition of t e accuse. A sum which might be trivial to a wealthy man, might be to apom man oppressive. and equivalent to a denial of ball. To authorize the court of appeals to reduce an ostensibly reasonable amount of bail, fixed b_v the court below, the pecuniary circumstances of the accused must be disclosed in the record. E2: parts Hutchinws, ll App. 28. See. post. Art. 296. 1449-Excessive fines, etc,-i)e(,lgi0ng gg 1,0,-When the punishment assessed is within the limits prescribed by law, it is not "excessive," and courts cannot remed_v the (grievance, even though of opinion that the discretion of the jury was not judiciously exercise. Brown v. S. 16 Tex. 122; March v. S. 35 Tex. 115; Chiles v. S. 2 App. 36; League v. S. 4 App. 147; Davis v. S. Id. 456; Johnson v. S. 5 App. 423; Drake v. S. Id. 649; Williams v. S. 6. App. 147; Smith v. S. 7. App. 414. Ten years' confinement in the penitentiary being within the limits of the penalty prescribed by law for horse theft. such penalty cannot be held to be excessive, even though the same jury. upon the same evidence. awarded only live years to a co-defendant whop eaded guilty. Jones v. S. 14 App. 85. Confinement in t...