State v. Crawford

• Decision Date: 04 January 1915
• Docket Number: No. 18397.,18397.
• Citation: 263 Mo. 637,173 S.W. 673
• Parties: STATE v. CRAWFORD.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

173 S.W. 673

263 Mo. 637

STATE v. CRAWFORD.

No. 18397.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

January 4, 1915.

Rehearing Denied February 23, 1915.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Thomas C. Hennings, Judge.

Scire facias proceeding by the State against C. C. Crawford. From a final judgment forfeiting a recognizance, defendant appeals. Reversed.

On January 6, 1913, a scire facias was duly issued from the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, citing appellant to appear and show cause why execution should not issue against him upon a debt of $800, acknowledged to be due by a forfeited recognizance. From said writ it appears that on November 21, 1911, appellant became surety upon a recognizance for the appearance of one Ethel Green, alias Ethel Brown, before the St. Louis court of criminal correction on the 12th day of December, 1911, then and there to answer the charge of grand larceny, etc.; that numerous continuances were granted, and finally, on December 21, 1912, default was made by said Ethel Green, and thereupon said St. Louis court of criminal correction duly certified said recognizance and record of said default to the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, and judgment of forfeiture was entered therein.

The proceeding under the scire facias was continued from time to time, at the request of said surety, until May 6, 1913, on which date the surety produced the said Ethel Green in court and paid the costs, and the court made an order setting aside the forfeiture of said bond. Thereafter the state filed its motion to set aside the order setting aside the forfeiture, which motion was by the court sustained on May 31, 1913, and the proceeding under the scire facias was reinstated. Later said surety filed answer to the writ, and thereupon the state filed its reply. On February 13, 1914, evidence was heard upon the issues presented by the pleadings, and upon said date the court entered final judgment against said surety and ordered that an execution issue. The surety thereupon perfected an appeal to this court.

The evidence upon the part of the surety tended to establish the following facts: The execution of the bond was admitted. After the default was made, the surety began a search for the prisoner, and in the spring of 1913 located her in the jail at Decatur, Ill. The surety thereupon attempted to get the Decatur officials to allow her to be brought back to St. Louis, but they refused. Upon the expiration of her jail sentence, the surety, at his own expense, sent a police officer from St. Louis to Decatur for the purpose of returning the prisoner. The police officer made the trip, but the authorities at Decatur turned the prisoner over to the officers of Springfield, Ill., where she was wanted on a minor charge. Later, through the efforts of the surety, and at his expense, she was brought from Springfield to St. Louis, and there on May 6, 1913, produced in court by the surety, and the costs were then paid by said surety. The surety further testified that at the time he signed the bond he did not know the prisoner; that after signing the bond he received...