
    Ex parte WADE.
    (No. 7461.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 6, 1922.)
    ■ Bail <§fcm43 — 'Where there was no right of self-defense, bail was properly refused in a homicide case.
    Where accused was charged with the killing of his brother while the latter was sitting in an automobile, and, when asked why he killed him, replied that' he was tired of seeing him ride around town in an automobile, and there was nothing to give accused any right -of self-defense, held not error for trial court to refuse bail.
    <S=>For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in ail Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Appeal from District Court, Hill County; Horton B. Porter, Judge.
    John Wade was charged with homicide, and from an order refusing him bail, he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Frazier & Averitte, of Hillsboro, for appellant.
    Will M. Martin, Co. Atty., J. E. Clarke, Asst. Co. Atty., Morrow & Stollenworck and Collins, Dupree & Crenshaw, all of Hillsboro, and R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court of Hill county refusing appellant bail.

Appellant was charged with killing his brother. The facts in the record show that deceased was sitting in his car at the time he was shot. While not fully developed by the evidence, it appears that a number of brothers were interested in an estate, and it is claimed that deceased was attempting in various ways to secure control of the entire pr.operty. Appellant’s wife was killed by another brother, Lynn Wade, some -time before the instant homicide. We find nothing in the record in any wise appearing to give to appellant any right of self-defense in this case. A pistol was found in the folded up top of the car of deceased, but no attempt to use it appears in the statement of facts. It was in testimony that after the shooting appellant was asked why he did it, and his reply was that he was tired of seeing deceased ride around town in an automobile. We are unable to conclude any error in the action of the trial court in refusing bail, and the judgment will be affirmed.  