
    Ex parte SHARP.
    (No. 10392.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 25, 1926.)
    1. Habeas corpus <&wkey;H3(9) — Merits of proceeding cannot be considered, where transcript and statement of facts is not certified by judge, and transcript does -not contain notice of appeal (Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 950).
    Merits of habeas corpus proceeding for discharge from custody in default of bail cannot be considered,- where transcript and statement of facts are not certified by judge, as required by-Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 950, and transcript does not contain notice of appeal.
    2. Habeas corpus @=»l 13(13) — Alleged felon, held on writ of habeas corpus in default of bail, is not entitled to relief on appeal, in absence of evidence of excessive bail or his pecuniary circumstances.
    One held by examining court and district judge on writ of habeas corpus, in default of bail, under charge of felony, is not entitled to relief on appeal, in absence of evidence of excessive bail or appellant’s pecuniary circumstances.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Nuec-es County; A. W. Cunningham, Judge.
    Application by O. H. Sharp for writ of ha-beas corpus. From an order declining to discharge relator, or to modify the order fixing bail, relator appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    E. T. Simmang, Jr., of Tientsin, China, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

Relator was' charged by complaint in the magistrate’s court with the offense of theft from a person. Upon the hearing, the magistrate ordered him to await the action of the grand jury, and fixed bail in the sum of $1,000. The district judge, upon the application of relator, issued a writ of habeas corpus, and upon the hearing thereof declined to discharge the relator or modify the order fixing bail.

The proceedings were had in chambers. The transcript of the proceedings is not certified by the judge, as required by statute. See Ex parte Malone, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 297, 31 S. W. 665, 33 S. W. 360, and cases following, collated in Rose’s Notes on Tex. Rep. vol. 5, p. 1062; also Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 950. Nor does it contain notice of appeal. See Ex parte Barrier, 17 Tex. App. 585. The statement of facts is not certified by the trial judge, as required by article 950, Vernon’s Tex. Orim. Stat. vol. 2. See, also, Ex parte Malone, supra; Ex parte Calvin, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 84, 48 S. W. 518; Ex parte Overstreet, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 468, 46 S. W. 929.

Eor the reasons stated, the record is not in a condition for us to consider the merits thereof. However, even if the law permitted us to do so, the relator being charged by complaint with a felony, and held by the examining court and the district judge on a writ of habeas corpus in default of bail, allowed in the sum of $1,000, and there being.no evidence that it was excessive, nor showing the appellant’s pecuniary circumstances, the record would not justify relief upon appeal. See Miller v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 383, 60 S. W. 673; Ex parte Clay (Tex. Cr. App.) 51 S. W. 241.

The appeal is dismissed. 
      other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER, in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     