
    Ex parte Charlie KNOX v. STATE.
    (No. 11619.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 25, 1928.
    Appeal from District Court, Limestone County; W. R. Boyd, Judge.
    Ira Lawley, Kennedy & Engledow, J. E. Bradley, and L. W. Shepperd, all of Groesbeck, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Appellant was indicted for robbery by the use of firearms. He sought thrbugh habeas corpus "proceeding to be released on bail. From an order remanding him without bail this appeal is prosecuted. Appellant and two others robbed a bank at Tehuacana, in Limestone county, and obtained something over $1,600. Appellant and one other robber exhibited pistols and presented them at the bank officers, by means of which the robbery was effected. No shots were fired; no one was injured; the reason perhaps being that no resistance was offered. The principles controlling where the question of bail is' involved have been so frequently discussed it is useless to again review them. See article 1, § 11, Constitution; Ex parte Smith, 23 Tex. App. 100, 5 S. W. 99; Ex parte Beacom, 12 Tex. App. 318; Ex parte Evers, 29 Tex. App. 539, 16 S. W. 343; Ex parte Russell, 71 Tex. Cr. R. 377, 160 S. W. 75; Ex parte Young, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 413, 222 S. W. 242. The case of Ex parte Scott, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 201, 234 S. W. 220, is direct authority on the point that appellant was entitled to bail. The judgment refusing bail is reversed, and bail granted in the sum of $15,000.  