State v. Reed
| Decision Date | 15 November 1923 |
| Docket Number | 18157. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. REED et al. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Hall, Judge.
Action by the State against Patricia Reed and others. From an order staying the action, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Malcolm Douglas and Arthur Schramm, Jr., both of Seattle, for the state.
T. D Page, of Seattle, for respondents.
An order of forfeiture of a bail bond was entered in a justice court for failure of Patricia Reed, the accused, to appear and answer a criminal charge. After the order of forfeiture was entered, the original bond, together with a transcript of the proceedings in the justice court, was filed in the superior court, and this action commenced to recover the penalty of the bond.
It is alleged in the complaint of the state that on June 26, 1922 the defendant Patricia Reed was charged by complaint in writing, filed with a justice of the peace in and for Seattle precinct, King county, Wash., with the crime of forgery in the first degree; that a warrant was issued on the complaint and served upon the defendant; that in order to secure her release from custody the bond so obtained was executed and filed; that the cause was regularly called for trial on September 27, 1922, and continued on motion of the defendant to November 17, 1922, on which last date defendant failed to appear, and the justice of the peace thereupon duly and regularly forfeited the bail bond; that on November 21 1922, the justice filed with the clerk of the superior court a transcript of his proceedings in the case; that the defendant has departed from the jurisdiction of the court, is a fugitive from justice, and ever since November 17, 1922 has failed and refused to return to the jurisdiction of the court wherein proceedings were pending, and has evaded service of process.
Respondents, the sureties, answered, admitting the allegations of the complaint, and pleaded as an affirmative defense thereto that, immediately upon learning that Patricia Reed had fled the jurisdiction of the court they, as sureties, commenced a diligent search for her; the in doing so they expended a large amount of time and money; that on December 21, 1922, they learned that she had been arrested in San Francisco, Cal., on a charge of forgery, and was being held for trial upon that charge; that thereupon the sureties caused a bench warrant to be issued and forwarded to the officers in California having the defendant in custody, and arranged with such officers to hold her pending proceedings for her extradition on the event that she should be released from the custody on the pending charge of forgery in California. It was further alleged that the sureties would have extradited and returned her to the jurisdiction of the Washington court had she been released, or had it been otherwise possible to do so, but that she was tried and convicted in the California court upon a charge of forgery and sentenced to an indeterminate term in the state penitentiary of California, and has commenced serving the term. The affirmative defense further alleges that upon information and belief defendant Reed has been twice before confined in the penitentiary of California upon conviction of crime, and it is therefore unknown when, if ever, she will be released; that the sureties are willing to pay, the tender the costs of this action and the costs incurred in the justice court. The prayer of the answer is that the bond be remitted in full upon the payment of the costs in the justice court, and, in the event that the court shall hold the facts set forth in the answer do not constitute a good defense, that the answer be treated as a plea in abatement and the cause abated until such time as the defendants shall have power and opportunity to cause the defendant Reed to be extradited and returned for trial.
Appellant moved for judgment on the pleadings. The court denied this motion, granted respondent's plea in abatement, and entered an order to the effect that, upon the payment into court by the defendants of the several amounts due for costs in the justice court and the costs to date in the superior court, further proceedings in the case would be stayed until the release of the defendant Reed from the penitentiary at San Quentin, Cal., and a reasonable time thereafter to enable the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wynne
...should be granted and when temporary abatement of forfeiture proceedings should be granted. Cain v. State, 55 Ala. 170; State v. Reed, 127 Wash. 166, 219 P. 833; In re James, 18 F. 857; Com. v. Dana, Mass. 65. (17) Court below failed to exercise its discretion at all. This in itself is erro......
-
State v. Kramer
...892 (1964); State v. O'Day, 36 Wash.2d 146, 216 P.2d 732 (1950); State v. Seibert, 170 Wash. 80, 15 P.2d 281 (1932); State v. Reed, 127 Wash. 166, 219 P. 833 (1923); State v. Olson, 127 Wash. 300, 220 P. 776 (1923); State v. Bailey, 121 Wash. 413, 209 P. 847 (1922); Johnson, 69 Wash. 612, 1......
-
State v. Mitchell
...are opposed to the holdings of the cases enumerated supra--see Allison v. People, 132 Colo. 156, 286 P.2d 1102 (1955); State v. Reed, 127 Wash. 166, 219 P. 833 (Wash.1923); State v. Heslin, 63 Wash.2d 957, 389 P.2d 892 (1964); and State v. Williams, 48 N.D. 1259, 189 N.W. 625 (1922)--but th......
-
State v. Arrington
...under this statute as to give effect to this manifest policy.' See also State v. Jackschitz, 76 Wash. 253, 136 P. 132, 133; State v. Reed, 127 Wash. 166, 219 P. 833; Allison v. People, 132 Colo. 156, 286 P.2d 1102. 'Since there is no reason for penalizing the sureties where it appears that ......