State v. Reames
| Decision Date | 04 November 1914 |
| Docket Number | 20773 |
| Citation | 136 La. 48,66 So. 393 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. REAMES |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
An incorrect or insufficient description of the offense in an appearance bond, conditioned that the accused will personally appear at the next term of court, and will not depart the court without leave first had and obtained, does not relieve the sureties on the bond.
Under section 1033 of the Revised Statutes of 1870, the surrender of the accused must be to the sheriff or his deputy in open court or within the four walls of the parish prison, in order to release the surety on the appearance bond.
L. K Watkins, of Minden, for appellants.
Ruffin G. Pleasant, Atty. Gen., and Thomas W. Robertson, Dist. Atty., of Minden (G. A. Gondran, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.
Defendant was indicted for shooting one Cook with intent to kill and murder, and his appearance bond was fixed at $ 300. A warrant issued under which the defendant was arrested. He was released on giving bond in the sum of $ 300, with S. H. Ford and W. D. Moreland as sureties. The bond was duly forfeited at the next term of the court, and judgment was rendered in solido against the defendant and his sureties.
Subsequently the defendant and his sureties filed a motion to set aside the judgment of forfeiture on the ground that the bail bond was not identified with the case, and was not in conformity or accord with any orders of court, nor was supported by the charge preferred against the defendant, and on the further ground that the defendant was surrendered to Robert Bigley, deputy sheriff, several days before the case was called for trial, and the bondsmen were not responsible for his escape, and were fully discharged.
The first ground is based on the circumstance that the bond recites a charge of 'shooting at with intent to kill and murder,' while the indictment charged 'shooting with intent to murder.' The warrant of arrest properly recites the charge against the defendant, and there is no doubt that the bond was given for the purpose of releasing the defendant from the arrest made under said warrant. The bond corresponds in amount with the order of court and with the warrant. It is not shown that any other indictment of a like nature was then pending against the defendant. This ground of defense is based solely on the insertion of the word 'at' in the bond after the word 'shooting.' The insertion was obviously a clerical error. The bond contained the usual condition that the accused would appear at the June term, 1914, of the court, and not depart the court without leave first had and obtained.
The fact that the offense is not sufficiently or is incorrectly set forth in the bond does not relieve the sureties, who are held to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
West v. State
...the offense of V. L. O. L., was sufficient. Main v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 56 S.W. 970; Clark v. Gordon, 82 Ga. 613, 9 S.E. 333; State v. Reams, 136 La. 48, 66 So. 393; v. Gordon, 87 Ga. 277, 13 S.E. 512; Vinson v. Northen, 94 Ga. 698, 19 S.E. 991; Commonwealth v. Teevens, 143 Mass. 210, 9 N.E.......
-
Pfeil v. State
... ... Edwards v. State, 39 Okl. 605, 136 P. 577; Cameron v. Burger, 60 Or. 458, 120 P. 10; State v. Tieman, 39 Iowa, 474; 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. 393 ... Analyzing the Roberts Case, 4 Tex. App. 129, cited in our opinion, and differentiated by appellants in their motion for rehearing, it appears to us to be a case of exact similarity, in principle, facts, and legal announcement, to the case at bar. In that ... ...
-
State in Interest of Lombard
...all respects. The inadvertent errors in paragraph two do not render the judgment of forfeiture an absolute nullity. See, State v. Reames, 136 La. 48, 66 So. 393 (1914). Gramercy's argument that no evidence was produced to forfeit the bond is equally lacking substance. The reason speaks for ......
-
State v. Lankford
... ... therefore the offense charged must of necessity have been ... committed before that date. The bond itself supplies the ... date. An incorrect or insufficient description of the offense ... in an appearance bond does not relieve the surety. State ... v. Reames, 136 La. 48, 66 So. 393. A fortiori will a ... correct description as to date, when the date in an affidavit ... is an impossible one, not relieve the surety ... Appellant's ... second objection would be well taken if the bond had been ... furnished in a proceeding before the ... ...