
    DUNN et al. v. STATE.
    No. 26908.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 21, 1954.
    No attorneys on appeal for appellants.
    'Wesley Dice,- State’s Atty., Austin, for the State. ■■ ■ ■ '
    
   GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

The appellants, Hugh R. Dunn, W. E. Martin, and J. J. ^hown were sued upon the forfeiture of an appearance bond entered into by them on .the 15th day of August, 1952, whereby they undertook to bind themselves for the appearance of the said Hugh -R. Dunn'before the County'Coiirt at Law No. 3 of Harris County, Texas, to answer upon a charge of misdemeanor duly filed therein.

On the call of such case it appears that the said Hugh R. Dunn failed to make his appearance at the time set forth in said undertaking as his name was called, and not having appeared within a reasonable time after, such call was made, this bail bond was declared forfeited, and the two sureties thereon were ordered to show cause why the forfeiture of said bond should not be made final. This they seem to have failed to do and eventually this judgment was made final ' in the full -amount of $400 set forth in said bond, together with all costs incurred. From said judgment of the court this appeal has been taken.

Notice of appeal was given herein and the appeal bond made on the 3rd day of December, 1953, and the appeal was filed in this court on February ll, 1954.

No brief was filed in'this court by the appellants.

In the case of Taylor v. State, 152 Tex. Cr.R. 625, 216 S.W.2d 206, this court said:

“There - are no briefs filed in this court by appellants, 'and' it does not appear -from the record' that any were filed in the court below. Under the record as it appears in this case, this court is required to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. It is the uniform holding, of this court..that in cases of this nature, briefs’must be filed in the trial court and in this court, as in civil cases. See Art. 866, C.C.P.; Rules 414, 415, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; Hooper v. State, 127 Tex. Cr.R. 117, 75 S.W.2d 724; Orr v. State, 143 Tex.Cr.R. 526, 158 S.W.2d 533; and Franklin v. State, 133 Tex. Cr.R. 179, 109 S.W.2d 482.
“From what we have said here .it follows that the appeal in this case should be dismissed, and it is so ordered.”

See also Gaither v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 244 S.W.2d 209.

For the foregoing reason, this cause is ordered dismissed.  