
    Ex parte BAILEY.
    (No. 10927.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 27, 1927.
    1. Habeas corpus <&wkey;4 13(9) — On appeal to reduce bail, transcription of stenographer’s notes is not “statement of facts” in accord with statute (Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 760).
    On appeal to obtain reduction of bail in murder case, a statement of facts consisting of a transcription of the stenographer’s notes in question and answer form is not in accord with Code Or. Proc. 1925, art. 760, relating to “statement of facts” on appeal.
    [Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, State-bent of Fact.]
    2. Habeas corpus &wkey;>l 13(9) — Statement of facts without proof of effort to secure bond or that bail is excessive is insufficient for reduction of bail on appeal (Code 'Cr. Proc. 1925, arts. 136, 281).
    Statement of facts without proof of effort to secure bond or that bail fixed by trial court is excessive is insufficient to enable the Court of Criminal Appeals to determine whether bail in a murder ease should be reduced, in. view of Code Cx\ Proc. 1925, art. 281, providing matters to be considered in fixing bail, and article 136, authorizing habeas corpus to obtain reduction of bail.
    3. Bail &wkey;>49i — Accused, asking reduction of bail, has burden of introducing evidence' bail is excessive.
    When bail is granted in a criminal case, it rests with the applicant for reduction to produce evidence sustaining his complaint that the bail is excessive.
    Appeal from District Court, Hutchinson County; Newton P. Willis, Judge.
    Habeas corpus proceeding by Ed Bailey, under indictment for murder, to obtain reduction of bail. Prom a judgment discharging the writ, relator appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Caldwell, Coffee & Holmes, of Miami, and Witcher & Robertson, of Lubbock, for appellant.
   MORROW, P. J.

The relator is under indictment for murder. In a habeas corpus hearing he was allowed bail in the sum of $20,000. This appeal is to obtain a reduction of the bail.

The statement of facts before this court consists wholly of a transcription of the stenographer’s notes in question and answer form. This is not in accord with the statutory requirements. See article 760, C. C. P. 1925; also Kitchens v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 324, 203 S. W. 768, and numerous precedents collated in Vernon’s Ann. Tex. C. C. P. vol. 3, p. 100. However, we have read the document before us and fail to find therein any testimony to the effect that any effort has been made to secure bond in the amount fixed by the court or any proof that under the law the amount fixed by the trial court is excessive. The learned trial judge, after hearing the evidence, fixed the bail in the sum of $20,000. Article 281, C. C. P. 1925, fixing the rules which govern bail, declares, among other things, that the nature of the offense and the circumstances under which it is committed, as well as the ability of the accused to make bond, are to be considered, and proof should be made on these points. Under article 136, C. C. P. 1925, habeas corpus is available to determine questions relating to bail, and, primarily, the burden is upon the state to show that the offense is one in -which bail should be denied. When bail is granted, however, as in the present case, it rests with the applicant for reduction to produce evidence sustaining his complaint that the bail is excessive. • See Ex parte Villareal, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 23, 187 S. W. 214. The absence of the evidence which was before the trial court in the present instance leaves this court without basis upon which to determine that the bail should be reduced. It appearing that evidence was heard, and the record being silent as to what the proof was, this court must assume that the action of the trial court was justified.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      &wkey;Por other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     