Lockhart v. State
| Decision Date | 13 May 1893 |
| Citation | 22 S.W. 413 |
| Parties | LOCKHART et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, McCulloch county; M. Fulton, Special Judge.
Action by state of Texas against Jack Lockhart and others on a forfeited bail bond. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
C. H. Willingham, F. M. Newman, and R. B. Truly, for appellants. R. L. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
1. This appeal is prosecuted from a judgment final on a forfeited bail bond. Motion to quash the bond was made upon the ground that it did not name any offense against the penal laws of this state. The bond recited the offense to be "theft of thirty-three sheep." This point is not well taken. The offense, as set forth in the bond, is an offense against the laws of this state, and is sufficiently designated in the bond. Vivian v. State, 16 Tex. App. 262; Brown v. State, 28 Tex. App. 65, 11 S. W. Rep. 1022.
2. The special judge who presided over the court at the time the forfeiture occurred failed to sign the judgment nisi during said term, but did so at a subsequent term, and without notice to the parties. The contention is that this omission on the part of the judge rendered the judgment nisi invalid and void. We cannot concur in this proposition. A special judge who tries a case occupies the same position and has "all the power and authority of the district judge that may be necessary to enable him to conduct, try, determine, and finally dispose of such case." Code Crim. Proc. art. 572; Willson, Crim. St. §§ 2193, 2194. That the minutes of the court were not signed by the judge does not render the judgment of that court invalid or void is, as we understand it, well settled in this state. This being true, the subsequent act of the trial judge signing and approving such minutes cannot operate to invalidate the judgments theretofore legal. The judgment is affirmed. Judges all present and concurring.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sims v. State
...so far as we know, they were properly described. Dignowitty v. State, 17 Tex. 521 ; Green v. State, 28 Tex. App. 493 ; Lockhart v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 149 . And see 2 Bish. Crim. Proc. §§ 700, In our opinion the description "one pocketbook," containing, etc., was a perfectly good descript......
-
Scott v. Rohman
... ... [Cal.], 123; French v. Pease, 10 Kan. 51; ... Rollins v. Henry, 78 N. Car., 342; Keener v ... Goodson, 89 N. Car., 273; Osburn v. State, 7 ... O., 212; Childs v. McChesney, 20 Iowa 431; ... Lockhart v. State, 22 S.W. [Tex.], 413; Sullivan ... Savings Institution v. Clark, 12 ... ...
-
Stork v. State
...from judgments and decrees, though required by statute, has often been held not to affect the validity of same. Lockhart v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 149, 22 S. W. 413; Wright v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 3, 35 S. W. 150, 38 S. W. 811; Jordan v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 224, 38 S. W. 780, 39 S. W. 111......
-
Scott v. Rohman
...10 Mo. 346;Rollins v. Henry, 78 N. C. 342;Keener v. Goodson, 89 N. C. 273;Fontaine v. Hudson (Mo. Sup.) 5 S. W. 692;Lockhart v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 22 S. W. 413; French v. Pease, 10 Kan. 51. In Fouts v. Mann, 15 Neb. 172, 8 N. W. 64, it was held that the failure of the judge to sign a dec......