
    SALVESTON SESSION,
    JANUARY, 1860.
    Note.—This case should have appeared in the 25th volume of Texas Reports, pubished by Richard S. Walker, Esq., but the opinion could not have been furnished o the Reporter. As it decides one important principle, not yet adjudicated in any other case, it is here printed. The case is cited in Note 774 of Paschal’s Annotated Digest.
    Grier v. The State.
    The 13th section of the act further to regulate proceedings in the district court reads as follows: “No writ of error to remove a cause from the district to the supreme court shall in any case issue, unless the plaintiff in error give bond, with sufficient security, for all the costs which may accrue in the supreme court, and which may have accrued in the district court.” (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 1517, Note 598.) This article was intended to apply to the case of civil suits in which the execution of the judgment is Pot suspended, and it requires the costs of the district and supreme court to be secured in all cases.
    Where a defendant prosecutes error in a criminal proceeding, and gives the bond required by article 738 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he need not give the supersedeas bond required by article 1517 above quoted. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 3204, Note 774.)
    Error from Harris.
    It seems that the defendant prosecuted error under article 738 b of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The attorney general moved to dismiss the appeal, because the bond did not conform to the statute in civil cases.
    Hothing but a copy of the opinion has been furnished to the Reporter.
    
   Roberts, J.

The bond for writ of error is sufficient, notwithstanding the provision in Art. 557, O. & W. Dig., p. 140. [Paschal’s Dig., Art. 1517, Note 598.]

This article was intended to apply to the case of civil suits in which the execution of the judgment is not superseded, and it requires the costs of the district and supreme courts to be secured in all cases. This is done by a bond for a supersedeas, which has been given in this case, in accordance with article 738 b, Code Criminal Procedure. [Paschal’s Dig., Art. 3204, Note 774.]

The motion to dismiss is

Overruled.  