State v. Hendricks
| Citation | 40 La.Ann. 719,5 So. 24 |
| Decision Date | 01 October 1888 |
| Docket Number | 220 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE STATE OF LOUISIANA v. JAMES HENDRICKS AND D. M. JAMESON, SURETY |
Rehearing refused.
APPEAL from the Fourth District Court, Parish of Jackson. Bridger, J.
J Henry Shepherd, District Attorney, for the State, Appellant.
E. E Kidd and F. W. Price, for Defendant and Appellee.
The State appeals from a judgment of the District Court annulling a previously rendered one, forfeiting the bond of the accused and condemning the surety therein to pay the amount thereof, the former failing to appear at the term when he was called to do so, the latter failing to produce then and there his body.
It appears that Hendricks was arrested by a justice of the peace on the charge of larceny, and was released on a bond for $ 300, with D. M. Jameson as surety therein, conditioned, substantially, that if the above bounden Hendricks shall appear at the jury term of the District Court, at the town of Vernon, Jackson parish, commencing on the first Monday of February, 1888, to answer the charge of larceny, and shall there remain from day to day and term to term, and shall not depart thence without leave of court, the obligation to be null and void, otherwise, to remain in force.
It further appears that a true bill was found against said Hendricks on February 11, 1888, and that a bench warrant was issued for his arrest, which took place on August 18 following, he having failed to appear on August 14 preceding, when the bond furnished by him was forfeited and the surety, Jameson, condemned to pay the amount thereof.
On the day following that of the forfeiture, Jameson took a rule to rescind the judgment nisi on the sole ground that he had never signed the bond, which rule was discharged by the court.
Subsequently, the surety took another rule, averring other grounds for which the judgment of forfeiture should be annulled. This rule was treated as an answer, putting at issue the right of the State to demand the forfeiture.
After hearing, the District Court annulled the judgment of forfeiture and released the defendant as surety.
From this judgment the State appeals.
It is manifest that the proceedings below were palpably irregular and unwarranted.
After the judgment of forfeiture had been rendered, instead of asking that it be set aside and the matter reinstated as a motion by the State for the forfeiture, the surety made a solitary defence, as though he had been called upon to answer a rule to forfeit, and that defence was that he had never signed the bond in question. The issue then was tried by the court and determined adversely to the surety.
Now, instead of applying for a new trial, the surety took a rule, setting forth technical grounds, tending to affect the regularity of the bond and of the proceedings under which it was furnished, and the State, instead of objecting to this mode of proceeding, prayed that the rule be treated as an answer.
We deem it unnecessary to pass upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial