
    Ex parte CALLOWAY.
    (No. 9060.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 29, 1924.)
    Bail <&wkey;>53—Three previous breaches of hail bonds held to warrant refusal to reduce hail.
    Three previous violations of bail bonds, requiring relator to answer to same indictment, warranted refusal to reduce bail, under Code Cr. Proe. 1911, art. 329, subd. 1.
    Appeal from District Court, San Saba County; J. I-I. McLean, Judge.
    Application by Roy Calloway for reduction of bail. From an order declining to reduce the bond, relator appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover O. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Relator made application to Hon. J. H. McLean, Judge of the Thirty-Third Judicial District of Texas, for reduction of bail, which had theretofore been set by the court at $5,000. From an order declining to reduce the bond, this appeal is taken.

At the November term, 1921, of the district court for San Saba county, an indictment was returned against relator, charging him in one count with the theft of cattle, and in another with receiving the same, knowing them to have been stolen. Upon examining trial for said charge before the justice court, relator’s bond had been fixed at $250, requiring his appearance before the district court on the 14th of November, 1921. Bond was executed in conformity with such order. At said November term relator failed to appear, and his bond was forfeited. After some search, the-sheriff rearrested him in another county, and his bond was then fixed at $1,-500, which he gave, obligating himself to appear on November 13, 1922. When the case was called at that term of court, relator again failed to appear and that bond was also forfeited. He was again arrested by the sheriff in still another county, and another bond, in the sum of $1,500, was given, by the terms of -frhieh relator obligated himself to appear at the November term, 1923. He again absented himself, and this third bond was forfeited. When he was arrested for- the fourth time after violating the obligations of three bonds, the district judge fixed the amount of bail at $5,000.

We think it unnecessary to discuss the matter. The very recital of the circumstances leading up to the court’s refusal to reduce bail is, in our opinion, sufficient justification for his action. Section 1 of article 329 of our O. O. P. provides that:

“The bail shall be sufficiently high to give reasonable assurance that the undertaking will be complied with.”

In Ex parte Thomas, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 49, 237 S. W. 302, where it appeared that accused had permitted a,forfeiture of his bond and then made application for reduction of the amount subsequently fixed by the court, this language was used:

“The object of a bail bond is to secure the presence of the accused, in order that he may be tried upon the charge against him, but when it appears to the proper authorities that the prisoner is not disposed to regard the obligation of ordinary bonds, or to be restrained by ordinary confinement, or has made threats that he will not be tried, we would be inclined to feel that the fixing of a higher bond was justifiable.”

In the present case, relator repeatedly violated the obligation of his bonds. 1-Ie showed no inclination or disposition to answer on the accusation against him in the indictment.

Believing the trial judge to be completely justified in declining to reduce the amount of bail theretofore fixed by him, under the circumstances shown by the record, his judgment in that respect is affirmed. 
      <&wkey;For other oases see same topic and KBIT-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     