
    Ex parte SCOTT.
    (No. 6668.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 3, 1921.)
    Habeas corpus <®=>l 13(13) — District judge cam-net refuse bail after indictment on evidence appellate court held justified bail.
    Where the Court of Criminal Appeals, on an appeal in habeas corpus proceedings for the discharge on hail of one accused of robbery, had held that accused was entitled to bail under the evidence, the district court could not refuse bail to accused after his indictment for the same offense, without receiving any additional evidence.
    Appeal from District Court, Clay County; H. F. Weldon, Judge.
    H. T. Scott was indicted for robbery, and denied bail by the district judge, and he appeals.
    Reversed, with directions to discharge relator on bail.
    John Davenport and Shields Heyser, both of Wichita Falls, and Taylor, Allen, Muse & Taylor, of Fort Worth, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

H. T. Scott and Sewell Fields were being held by complaint under a charge of robbery. Upon habeas corpus hearing the district judge denied them bail, and upon appeal from that order bail was granted said parties in the sum of $7,500 each. See No. 6644, Ex partes H. T. Scott and Sewell Fields, 234 S. W. 220, opinion delivered October 16, 1921.

On October 24, 1921, indictments were returned against those same parties upon the identical charge of robbery. They have again been denied bail by the district judge upon exactly the sanie state of facts, which was presented to the court upon the former hearing. Attached to the statement of facts which is a copy of the one on file in the case on the other hearing we find the following agreement and certificate:

“It is hereby agreed and understood that the narrative form statement of facts now on file in the office of the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals in the habeas corpus proceedings-before indictment in these said causes is the full and complete record of the testimony submitted in presentation of habeas corpus now on file in these said causes, as no additional testimony was introduced, and may be used in these habeas corpus proceedings sued out after indictment in these said causes.”

This is signed by the attorney for the state and relator, and also by the district judge. We cannot refrain from expressing our surprise that, after this court had plainly indicated its views with reference to the cases in question being bailable, they should again have found their way before us with not a word or line of additional testimony than that on which we had based our former opinion. Whatever views the district judge may entertain personally with reference to either the law or facts, whenever this court has expressed its opinion with reference to a matter, it is the duty of the trial judge to respect it, for in no other way can an orderly system of law be maintained.

The judgment of the trial judge denying relator bail is reversed, and he is ordered discharged pending trial upon entering into bail or recognizance, according to law, in the sum of $7,500. 
      other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests-and Indexes
     