State v. Holt
| Decision Date | 23 May 1911 |
| Citation | 137 S.W. 877,234 Mo. 598 |
| Parties | STATE v. HOLT et al. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
BAIL (§ 48)—STATUTES—CONSTRUCTION.
Under Rev. St. 1909, § 5126, providing that when any sheriff shall arrest a party, etc., and the amount of bail required is specified on the warrant, such officer may take bail, etc., construed in connection with other sections, a sheriff may admit to bail one committed to jail by a magistrate on account of failing to give bond to await the action of the circuit court, when the amount of bail has been fixed by the magistrate.
Appeal from Circuit Court, New Madrid County; Henry C. Riley, Judge.
Proceeding by the State against J. H. Holt and others. From the judgment, certain defendants appeal. Affirmed.
This is a proceeding by scire facias on a bond given for the appearance of the defendant Holt in the circuit court of New Madrid county, to answer a charge of grand larceny. The appellants herein, Lee Hunter and J. A. Cresap, were sureties on the bond. The defendant Holt forfeited the bond, and the sureties were duly served with process. Judgment was rendered against them for the amount of the bond, and they have appealed.
Holt was arrested on a warrant issued on April 9, 1908, by J. D. Step, a justice of the peace of New Madrid county, and on the same day he was brought before the justice to answer. He waived preliminary examination, and bail was fixed by the justice at the sum of $500, and in default of bail he was committed to jail to await the action of the circuit court. The amount of his bail as so fixed was at the time indorsed on the warrant of commitment by the justice. Holt was held in custody by the jailer under the warrant of commitment from April 9 until April 18, 1908, when he was released on the bond now in controversy, which was taken and approved by the sheriff in the amount fixed by the justice. The information charging Holt with grand larceny was filed September 10, 1908, in the circuit court, and a default was entered at the September term, 1908.
John H. Bradley, W. G. Bray, and J. T. McKay, for appellants. Elliott W. Major, Atty. Gen., and Jas. T. Blair, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
ROY, C. (after stating the facts as above).
1. The point is made by the Attorney General that the bill of exceptions was not signed by the trial judge; but, as he concedes that the question in issue can be raised on the record proper, no further notice will be taken of that proposition.
2. The appellants contend that section 5126, R. S....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wilson
... ... character ... For ... more than half a century, commencing with State v ... Randolph, 22 Mo. 474, in a long and unbroken [265 Mo ... 10] line of cases down to and including State v ... Grant, 252 Mo. 602, 160 S.W. 993, and State v ... Holt, 234 Mo. 598, 137 S.W. 877, it has been expressly ... or impliedly held that scire facias proceedings, as ... is the instant case, are continuances of existing actions, ... and if the original action was a felony that this court has ... jurisdiction. Time and space need not be taken in ... ...
-
State v. Wilson
...22 Mo. 474, in a long and unbroken line of cases down to and including State v. Grant, 252 Mo. 602, 160 S. W. 993, and State v. Holt, 234 Mo. 598, 137 S. W. 877, it has been expressly or impliedly held that scire facias proceedings, as is the instant case, are continuances of existing actio......
-
Bray v. Culp
...the validity of the bail bond and the liability of the sureties were finally adjudged by the Supreme Court in May, 1911, in State v. Holt, 234 Mo. 598, 137 S.W. 877. this plaintiff, recognizing his liability to the sureties on the bail bond, paid to them the amount of the judgment on that b......
-
Bray v. Culp
...the validity of the bail bond and the liability of the sureties was finally adjudged by the Supreme Court in May, 1911, in State v. Holt, 234 Mo. 598, 137 S. W. 877. Thereupon this plaintiff, recognizing his liability to the sureties on the bail bond, paid to them the amount of the judgment......