
    Ex parte KYLE.
    (No. 11638.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 8, 1928.
    Bail <&wkey;43 — Bail was properly denied on murder charge, where issue of self-defense was for jury, and defendant’s evidence unsupported by disinterested witnesses.
    Defendant, charged with murder, was properly remanded without bail, where his testimony, injecting issue of self-defense, was for jury, and was unsupported by testimony of disinterested witnesses, and state’s evidence showed his previous threats to hill deceased.
    Appeal from District Court, Tyler County; Thos. B. Coe, Judge.
    Application for a writ of habeas corpus by Booker Kyle to be released from custody on bail. From judgment remanding petitioner without bail, he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. A. Mooney and S. W. Sholars, both of Woodville, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Appellant had been remanded without bail by a justice of the peace of Tyler county upon a charge of murdering Rosetta Evans. He then sought bail by resort to habeas corpus proceeding before Hon. Thos. B. Coe, Judge of the Seventy-Fifth judicial district of Texas. After ’hearing the evidence, he was again remanded by said judge without bail, from which order he prosecutes this appeal.

From an examination of the evidence, we are not led to believe the action of the remanding judge is subject to revision. Appellant testified on the hearing, and by his evidence injected an issue of self-defense which it would be necessary to submit to the jury upon a trial. His evidence is in no way supported by that of any disinterested witness. The state’s evidence shows that he had previously made threats to kill deceased. We quote from Ex parte Polk, 99 Tex. Or. R. 106, 268 S. W. 464, because authorities are there-1 in referred to which we think are controlling • here:

“Because there may be evidence in the record of mitigating • circumstances, or raising the issue of self-defense, or of an accidental killing does not in every case require overturning of the decision of a trial judge denying bail. Ex parte Ross, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 313, 251 S. W. 235; Ex parte Good, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 326, 251 S. W. 233; Ex parte Jones, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 422, 20 S. W. 983; Ex parte Smith, 23 Tex. App. 100, 5 S. W. 99; Ex parte Hanks, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 387, 261 S. W. 1027. The source of. the evidence may be considered in determining whether the denial of bail was erroneous.” '

The judgment is affirmed.  