
    Tom Marshall v. The State.
    No. 2555.
    Decided November 19, 1902.
    Bond on Appeal frota Justice Court.
    The statute requires that the appeal bond from a justice court should obligate the appellant to appear at “the next term” of the court appealed to. When the condition was, that appellant should appear at “the present regular term,” this was not a compliance with the statute, and the appeal was properly dismissed. Following Fentress v. State, 16 Texas Grim. App., 79.
    Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Galveston. Tried below before Hon. J. K. P. Gillaspie.
    Appeal from a judgment dismissing an appeal from justice court.
    Ho statement necessary.
    
      Mar sene Johnson, for appellant.
    
      Rob’t A. John, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
   DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the justice court, and prosecuted his appeal to the criminal district court. Motion" was made by the district attorney to dismiss the appeal, because the bond was not in compliance with the statute. The statute requires the party prosecuting such appeal to enter into bond conditioned, among other things, that he will make his personal appearance before the “next term” of the court to which he prosecutes his appeal. The bond executed was conditioned that he make his personal’appearance “at the present regular term,” instead of “at the next regular term.” The motion to dismiss was sustained. The case of Fentress v. State, 16 Texas Crim. App., 79, is in point and decisive of this question against appellant. Dn the authority of that case, the judgment herein is affirmed.

Affirmed.  