Hill v. State
| Decision Date | 01 January 1864 |
| Citation | 27 Tex. 608 |
| Parties | ISAAC L. HILL v. THE STATE. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Judgment final on recognizances, bail bonds, and bonds taken for the prevention or suppression of offenses, may be brought to the supreme court by writ of error.
A recognizance entered into by a defendant in May, 1858, which omitted to “state distinctly the accusation against the defendant,” held to be insufficient to support a judgment rendered thereon after the amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure took effect; by one of which amendments it is made sufficient that the “name” of the offense charged against the defendant be stated.
A recognizance, defective in the above particular, cannot be aided by the note put by the clerk of the court opposite to the title of the case, indicating the offense of which the defendant was accused.
ERROR from Fayette. Tried below before the Hon. George W. Smith.
On the 26th of May, 1858, one Isaac W. Cox as principal, and the plaintiff in error as his surety, entered into a recognizance before the district court of Fayette county, in the sum of one thousand dollars, and conditioned for the future appearance of the said Cox. The caption to the entry upon the record of this recognizance was as follows:
+-----------------------------------------------+
¦“The State of Texas¦)¦ ¦
+-------------------+-+-------------------------¦
¦v. ¦)¦Larceny of a Beef Steer.”¦
+-------------------+-+-------------------------¦
¦Isaac W. Cox, ¦)¦ ¦
+-------------------+-+-------------------------¦
¦R. M. Cox. ¦)¦ ¦
+-----------------------------------------------+
Besides this caption or title there was nothing in the entry to show the offense charged against the parties indicted.
On the 25th of May, 1859, the recognizance was declared forfeited and judgment nisi entered. Scire facias was served on the plaintiff in error on the 8th of November following, and he appeared and pleaded that there was no valid recognizance or judgment nisi. He also filed an answer attempting to show cause for the default of his principal.
The court held the showing insufficient, and, having inspected and heard the record of the recognizance and judgment nisi, rendered judgment final against Cox and the plaintiff in error for one thousand dollars, the amount of the recognizance. From this judgment, Hill prosecutes his writ of error.
The Attorney General, for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bryant v. State
...be aided by such intendments as the court can reasonably make from other portions of the recognizance. Brite v. State, 24 Tex. 219; Hill v. State, 27 Tex. 608; Stewart v. State, 37 Tex. 576; Carroll v. State, 6 Tex. App. 463. We take it that the same rule will be applied here. The bond reci......
-
Patton v. State
...It is true there were other defects in the bond, but this of not “distinctly naming” the offense is regarded as a fatal defect. Hill v. The State, 27 Tex. 608, although a ruling upon a recognizance, is directly in point, as the naming of the offense is required in a recognizance. In bail bo......
-
Ayres v. Duprey
... ... NOTE.--Roach v. The State, 41 Tex., 261. The testimony of a witness cannot be contradicted by proving that he had made declarations and statements inconsistent with his ... ...
-
Cushman v. State
...v. The State, 13 Tex. 217; The State v. Glaevecke, 33 Tex. 58; The State v. Cox, 25 Tex. 406;Bennett v. The State, 27 Tex. 702;Hill v. The State, 27 Tex. 608;Branch v. The State, 25 Tex. 426. 2. The judgment nisi should have been set aside. Pas. Dig. arts. 2884, 3005, 2880; Barringer v. The......