
    Ex parte ANGLIN.
    (No. 9890.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 4, 1925.)
    Bail <&wkey;52 — $1,500 bail set in theft of automobile should have been reduced to $600.
    In prosecution for theft of a Eord automobile, where defendant, a soldier stationed in state, was living in another state, had no acquaintances in state except a brother-in-law, who refused him aid, and only prospect of his giving bond depended on raising money in own state, which defendant thought he could do to extent of $600, or possibly more, the fixing of bail at $1,500, under rule of judge making that sum minimum for adult males in felony cases, should be reduced to $600, in view of Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 329, giving court discretion in fixing bail ip accordance with nature and circumstances of offense and pecuniary circumstances of accused, and providing that power should not be abused or made an instrument of oppression.
    Appeal from District Court, Gillespie County ; J. H. McLean, Judge.
    Neal Anglin was charged with theft of a Ford automobile and receipt of same car, and his bail was fixed at $1,500. From a judgment refusing to reduce bail, he appeals.
    Bail reduced to $600.
    A. P. O. Petsch, of Fredericksburg, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Greenville, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The offense charged is the theft of a Ford automobile. There were two counts in the indictment. One charged the theft of a Ford automobile; the other the receipt of the same ear.

The amount of bail was fixed in the sum of $1,500. The appeal is from a judgment refusing to reduce the bail. Relator was a private soldier in the United States army, stationed at Fort Sam Houston, Tex. His home was at Selma, Kan. Relator’s father, a farmer, lived in Kansas, and owned a farm of 200 acres, on which there was an incumbrance of $1,500, and 160 acres, being homestead, were exempt from mortgage. The witness had a brother-in-law in Texas whose aid he had sought without success in making bond. Aside from this brother-in-law, neither the l appellant nor his father had any acquaintances in Texas. The sole prospect of giving bond depended upon the ability of the witness to raise the money in Kansas. It was his belief that he could raise $500 or $600, and possibly as much as $750, and with that obtain and indemnify sureties .in Texas.

It appears from the record that the learned trial judge had a fixed rule to the effect that in felony cases, where the accused was an adult male, a bond of $1,500' was the minimum which he would allow. The statute on the subject (article 329, Vernon’s C. C. P.) confers upon the court or magistrate discretion touching the amount of bail, and declares that it shall be sufficiently high to give reasonable assurance of compliance with the undertaking and that the power should not be abused nor made an instrument of oppression ; that the nature of the offense, the circumstances under which it was committed, and the pecuniary circumstances of the accused are to be taken into account in fixing the amount of bond. There are many precedents Showing the action of this court in applying this statute and holding that bail was improperly denied. Among them are Sancedo v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 70 S. W. 546; Ex parte Creed, 67 Tex. Cr. R. 173, 149 S. W. 192; Ex parte Barnett, 47 Tex. Cr. R. 299, 83 S. W. 378; Ex parte Bowman, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 598, 204 S. W. 329. Other cases will be found collated in Vernon’s Tex. Crim. Stat. vol. 2, p. 158.

In our judgment, the application of the statute to the present facts would render it proper that the bail he reduced. It is accordingly ordered that bail be granted in the sum of $600. '  