State v. Miller
| Citation | 109 La. 27,33 So. 57 |
| Decision Date | 17 November 1902 |
| Docket Number | 14,523 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. MILLER |
Appeal from judicial district court, parish of Acadia; Conrad De Baillon, Judge.
Ambrose Miller was indicted for breaking and entering a store. On forfeiture of his bond, he and his surety appeal. Affirmed.
Story & Pugh and John J. Robera, for appellants.
Walter Guion, Atty. Gen., and William Campbell, Dist. Atty. (Lewis Guion, of counsel), for the State.
Statement of the Case.
On the 9th of May, 1902, the state of Louisiana obtained in the district court for the parish of Acadia a judgment against H M. Skolfield for the sum of $ 750, with interest.
Skolfield was surety for Ambrose Miller on a bond furnished by him to appear before the district court for the parish of Acadia to answer to the charge of breaking and entering in the nighttime the store of Miller & Kaplan. The bond was forfeited upon the non-appearance of Miller when called, and his nonproduction by the surety. The validity of the judgment is not questioned. At the time of the forfeiture of the bond a bench warrant was ordered to be issued for the arrest of Miller, and one was accordingly placed in the hands of the sheriff. While this warrant was in the hands of the sheriff Skolfield ascertained that Miller was in New Orleans, and proceeded to that point; the sheriff of Acadia having gone there by anticipation.
The sheriff testified that he showed him where he was, and he surrendered him the next day (the 23d of May, 1902), in New Orleans. He was, after this, placed in jail by the sheriff.
On the 27th of May, 1902, Miller and his surety, Skolfield, moved to set the judgment aside for the reason that Ambrose Miller was delivered to the sheriff of Acadia by his said bondsman, Skolfield, and is now within the four prison walls of said jail; that but one judicial day had elapsed since the rendition of said judgment; and that no execution had issued since the rendition of said judgment. The district court refused to set aside the judgment, and Skolfield appealed.
Opinion.It is stated in the brief for the state that on May 27, 1902, an application was made for bond, and a second bond was allowed, the amount of the same being fixed at $ 1,000; that Miller was, at the time of the filing of the brief, out on the second bond furnished and the case was then pending. These facts do not appear in the record. No brief has been filed on behalf of the appellant.
It is not pretended that the accused has yet been tried.
Section...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pfeil v. State
...Berkstresser v. Com., 127 Pa. 15, 17 A. 680; Perkins v. Terrell, 1 Ga. App. 250, 58 S. E. 133; Lee v. State, 51 Miss. 665; State v. Miller, 109 La. 27, 33 So. 57; State v. Reames, 136 La. 48, 66 So. Analyzing the Roberts Case, 4 Tex. App. 129, cited in our opinion, and differentiated by app......
-
State v. Mudd
...surrender will bind the State. State v. Tieman, 39 Ia. 476; Roberts v. State, 4 Tex.App. 130; State v. McMichael, 50 La. Ann. 431; State v. Miller, 109 La. 27. P. J. Ferriss and Brown, JJ., concur. OPINION KENNISH, P. J. This is an appeal from a final judgment upon a forfeited recognizance.......
-
State v. Reames
... ... The ... counsel for the sureties construe the above paragraph to mean ... that the surrender may be made to the sheriff or his deputy ... anywhere within the limits of the parish. Counsel ... admits that State v. Martin, 49 La.Ann. 755, 22 So ... 224, and State v. Miller, 109 La. 27-29, 33 So. 57, ... are to the contrary, but contends that in those cases this ... court did not punctuate the said paragraph correctly. Be that ... as it may, the court undoubtedly held that the surrender to ... the sheriff must be made in open court or within the four ... walls of ... ...