Barton v. State
| Decision Date | 01 January 1859 |
| Citation | 24 Tex. 250 |
| Parties | SETH M. BARTON AND OTHERS v. THE STATE. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
On a scire facias against the principal and sureties in a bail bond, to show cause why a judgment nisi against them should not be made final, the mere fact that the accused is in court ready to be tried on the indictment, is not a sufficient answer.
If the principal be in court, before the judgment final is rendered, it is his duty to present to the court, the reasons why the judgment ought not to be made final; and if he show then, any of the causes enumerated in art. 413 of the code of crim. proc., he will be entitled to be put upon his trial on the indictment, and the judgment nisi cannot be made final against him.
Where sufficient cause is not shown, even though the accused be present or in jail, before the entry of final judgment, it rests within the discretion of the court, to remit the forfeiture of the whole or part of the bond or recognizance.
APPEAL from Bexar. Tried below before the Hon. Thomas J. Devine. The facts appear from the opinion.
J. A. & G. W. Paschal, for the appellants.
Attorney General, for the appellee.
On the 7th day of April, 1857, the appellants, Seth M. Barton, as principal, and J. B. Plumer and J. N. Palmer, as sureties, entered into bond before a justice of the peace, which bond was in the sum of $1,000, conditioned that the said Barton should make his appearance before the next term of the district court for Bexar county, to answer any indictment that might be returned against him by the grand jury, etc. On the 17th day of June, 1857, the district court for Bexar county, being then in session, judgment nisi was rendered on the said bond, because of the failure of the said Barton to make his appearance before the court. Scire facias issued to the parties against whom the judgment nisi was rendered, commanding them to appear and show cause, etc. The scire facias was served on Palmer, on the 25th day of September, 1857. J. B. Plumer was served by publication, the service being made to the fall term, 1857, of the district court for the county. At that term an interlocutory judgment was entered against Barton and Palmer, and the cause continued, doubtless because final judgment could not then be taken against Plumer; that term of the court being the first term after service upon him by publication. At the spring term, 1858, of the court, judgment final was taken against all the parties, for the sum of $1,000, they failing to appear when...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williamson v. State
...the discretion of the lower court, a part or all of it is remitted. State v. Warren, 17 Tex. 283; Haverty v. State, 32 Tex. 602; Barton v. State, 24 Tex. 250; Lee v. State, 25 Tex. App. 331, 8 S. W. We cannot say in this case that the court below abused its discretion in rendering the judgm......
-
Johnson v. State
...in the bond or recognizance as to the principal, or the sureties or either one or more of the sureties. 8 Tex.Jur.2d 218, Sec. 94; Barton v. State, 24 Tex. 250; Lee v. State, 25 Tex.App. 331, 8 S.W. 277; Williams v. State, 51 Tex.Cr.R. 252, 103 S.W. 929; Moutas v. Bryson, Tex.Civ.App., 232 ......
-
State v. Glaevecke
...a part of the record. The State v. Cox, 25 Tex. 406. The recognizance in this case is similar to that in Barton v. The State. See 24 Tex. 250, and also, State v. Russell, 24 Tex. 506. The writ contains all the necessary averments to show the liability; anything further is or may be treated ......
-
Wheeler v. State
...statutory causes that will exonerate a surety from liability (Pas. Dig. art. 2884); and that the decision of this court, in Barton v. The State, 24 Tex. 250, as noted by Mr. Paschal, makes it incumbent on the sureties to specify some one of these causes to entitle them to relief. A careful ......