
    Ex parte MARKS.
    No. 21853.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 22, 1941.
    W. R. Parker and Byron Matthews, both of Fort Worth, and J. FÍ Murray, of Ponca City, Okl., for appellant.
    Forrester Hancock, Crim. Dist. Atty., and Fred L. Wilson, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., both of Waxahachie, and Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   GRAVES, Judge.

Relator was heretofore convicted of a conspiracy to commit theft, and by the court sentenced to serve five years in the penitentiary in accordance with the verdict of the jury. Upon the overruling of his motion for a new trial, the court fixed his bond on appeal at the sum of $8,000. He sued out a writ of habeas corpus requesting that the court reduce the amount of such bail, and upon the trial court’s refusal to do so, the matter is before us on appeal.

Under the facts it is shown that relator is a gypsy, and he and his wife were apprehended in the State of Oregon charged with a conspiracy to steal $7,749 from one E. W. Alexander in Ellis County. It also appears from the record that some person had placed the sum of $5,000 in a certain bank to be paid to Mr. Alexander provided relator and his wife were enlarged from custody at their trials for such offense.

It was alleged in the application herein that relator was unable to make bond in the amount of $8,000, but no effort is shown by the testimony to make any such bond. The witness who testified relative to such matters merely testified that he did not believe relator could make an $8,000 bond, but could possibly make a $4,500 or $5,000 bond. It also is shown that some one had made a deposit of $5,000 in a bank relative to the liberation of relator. There was no showing of any effort to make the herein demanded bond of $8,000. Relator is also shown to have been a person of wandering habits, and that he had been extradited on this particular matter from the State of Oregon, quite a distance from the scene of this alleged offense.

We think - it incumbent upon relator to have shown an effort to make the required bond before he was entitled to any consideration relative to a reduction of such amount. This he is not shown to have done. Under the circumstances we do not think he is entitled to any relief hereunder. See Ex parte Howell, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 305, 120 S.W.2d 264, 265; Ex parte McDaniel, 96 Tex.Cr.R. 539, 258 S.W. 1057; Ex parte Turner, 119 Tex.Cr.R. 151, 45 S.W.2d 1017; Ex parte Stanton, 121 Tex.Cr.R. 144, 51 S.W.2d 713; Ex parte Burleson, 133 Tex.Cr.R. 75, 109 S.W.2d 200.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.  