Chambless v. State
| Decision Date | 01 January 1857 |
| Citation | 20 Tex. 197 |
| Parties | NATHANIEL CHAMBLESS v. THE STATE. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
It has been heretofore decided by this court, that the delivery of the body of the defendant is not a good answer to a scire facias on a forfeited recognizance, without a further showing of excuse for the failure to have the body of the defendant in court at the proper time; it therefore follows that it is not a good answer to the scire facias, that the surety after the forfeiture of the recognizance, had caused the arrest of the defendant, on capias, to answer the charge, and that he was delivered by habeas corpus to other bail, without a further showing of excuse for the failure to have the defendant in court at the proper time.
Where a pardon is obtained, it may be filed after judgment in this court, before the issuance of the mandate, and the judgment will be made to conform to the pardon.
Error from Lavacca. Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones.
At the spring term, 1855, plaintiff in error entered into recognizance for the appearance of William B. Gage to answer a charge of unlawfully altering the mark and brand of a heifer, the property of William Hudgens, without the consent of said Hudgens. At fall term, 1855, the recognizance was forfeited, and scire facias ordered to issue thereon. On the 15th March, 1856, a capias for Gage was issued to Bastrop county, upon which he was arrested on the 5th April, and being brought before the Hon. Thomas H. DuVal, by writ of habeas corpus, was admitted to bail, and gave bond with other sureties for his appearance at Lavacca district court to answer the above charge. At spring term, 1856, on motion of the district attorney, the scire facias served to that term of the court was quashed, and another ordered returnable to next term. Same term, the second bond given in Bastrop was forfeited, and scire facias ordered. Fall term, 1856, continued by consent. To next term plaintiff in error answered the scire facias by plea that he had used every exertion in his power to have said William B. Gage at this court, as he agreed to do in his bond, by having a writ issued by the clerk of this court to the sheriff of Bastrop county, etc., stating the facts as above. To this plea, the court sustained a demurrer, and judgment on the scire facias was made final.
B. F. & W. M. Fly, for plaintiff in error, argued that the surety had done all that the law could reasonably require, by causing the defendant to be re-arrested, with a view to deliver him up in answer to the scire facias on his recognizance, which he was prevented from doing by the delivery of the defendant to other bail on the habeas corpus; and cited 1 Bac. Ab. r. 597; 3 Black. 224, n. 31; State v. Mahon, 3 Harring. 569.
Attorney General, for defendant in error.
It will be observed that a forfeiture nisi was taken in this case before the capias was ordered, upon which Gage was apprehended the second time, upon the charge preferred against him. It is contended that this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Last Legally Beaten Servant in America: from Compulsion to Coercion in the American Workplace
...the flesh. Scars gave evidence of the enslaved person's insubordinate nature that might lower his price in future sales. 200. See Echols, 20 Tex. at 197. A black boy who was hired to work in a sawmill was beaten so severely by the mill's superintendent for the boy's alleged misconduct that ......