Jackson v. State
| Citation | 13 Tex. 218 |
| Parties | JAMES R. JACKSON v. THE STATE. |
| Decision Date | 01 January 1854 |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Travis.
Sublett, for appellant.
Attorney General, for appellee.
This was a proceeding on scire facias against the appellant and his securities, Hall and Lot. The appellant had given his bond with his securities, for his forthwith appearance in court, then in session, to attend from day to day, to answer an indictment found against him for playing a game at keno. He was called, and not answering, a judgment nisi was taken against him and his securities for the penalty of the bond, and scire facias issued against them to show cause why the judgment should not be made final. The writ was returned, made known, and judgment was made final. On the same day that the judgment was made final, appellant, by his counsel, moved the court to set aside the judgment and for leave to make his defense. This motion was supported by a pretty strong affidavit, showing how the appellant was surprised by the judgment being taken during a short absence of an hour or two from the court.
As the application was made on the same day that the judgment was entered, and as all bonds and recognizances for appearance to answer the charge of the State are intended to secure the trial of the offender rather than to mulct his securities in a penalty, we believe the motion ought to have been allowed.
We have, however, a more substantial objection to the judgment than the one just noticed. The scire facias does not show sufficient grounds to authorize the judgment. A very obscure reference is made to the bond of the appellant. It does not appear who received and approved of it, nor by whose order it was taken; but from its being taken in term time, and conditioned for the appellant's forthwith appearance in court, there can be no doubt but it was taken by the sheriff, without authority, on a capias issued, requiring him to have the body of the appellant forthwith in court, as was the case of Busby et al. v. The State, decided at the present term, and like that the bond was void.
If the bond was valid, it is not sufficiently set out in the scire facias to sustain a judgment. It should be shown in substance under what authority the bond was taken, at what time--in fine, the bond itself should be substantially set out, to enable the parties to know the foundation of the proceedings against them, and to enable the Court to know on what grounds a judgment was asked. So far as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Owens v. Fraser
... ... State, 48 Miss. 280; People v ... Brown, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 47; Powell v. State, 15 ... Ohio 579; State v. Clarke, 15 Ohio 595; Williams ... v. Shelby, 2 Ore. 144; Belt v. Spaulding, 17 ... Ore. 130; State v. McCoy, 1 Baxt. (Tenn.) 111; ... Busby v. State, 13 Tex. 136; Jackson v ... State, 13 Tex. 218; Holmes v. State, 44 Tex ... 631; State v. Walker, 1 Mo. 546; State v ... Ramsay, 23 Mo. 327; State v. Randolph, 26 Mo ... 213; State v. Nelson, 28 Mo. 13; State v ... Ferguson, 50 Mo. 409; State v. Swope, 72 Mo ... 399; State v. Caldwell, 124 ... ...
-
Balboa v. State, 64239
...secure the presence and ensure the trial of the accused "rather than to mulct his securities in a penalty" from as early as Jackson v. State, 13 Tex. 218, 219 (1854) to as recently as McConathy v. State, 528 S.W.2d 594, 596 2 The heart of the rationale suggested by the majority opinion is t......
-
Grantham v. State
...substitution for a fine but is 'intended to secure the trial of the offender rather than to mulct his securities in a penalty.' Jackson v. State, 13 Tex. 218, 219. Reversal of the judgment forfeiting the bond will not release the sureties from liability on the appearance bond or prejudice t......
-
State v. Warren
... ... This cannot be maintained. (The People v. Anabell, 7 Hill, 33, 34.) What was not an answer to the action would not have been an answer to a scire facias upon the recognizance.In Jackson v. The State (14 Tex. 218), where the defendant appeared immediately on the same day on which the judgment was taken, and moved to set it aside, and for leave to make his defense, it was intimated that the motion ought to have been allowed. But it was but a passing remark; the court placed the ... ...