Case ID: sw2d_126/html/0659-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAWKINS, Judge. CHRISTIAN, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PARADIS et al. v. STATE.
    No. 20096.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 22, 1939.
    Rehearing Denied April 12, 1939.
    
      Rogers & Spurlock, of Fort Worth, for appellants.
    Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty.,- of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, Judge.

On July 31, 1936, an indictment was returned into the Criminal District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, charging G. D. Paradis in one count with forgery and in a second count with passing a forged instrument. On the 14th day of August, 1936, Paradis entered into an appearance bond in the sum of one thousand dollars with J. A. Petty and J. E. Petty as sureties. The case against Paradis was called for trial on the 11th of December, 1936. He failed to appear. A forfeiture was taken on his bond and judgment nisi entered against him and his sureties in the amount of said bond. Upon proper notice the trial was had on June 29, 1938, to determine whether the judgment nisi should he made final and judgment was entered against Paradis and J. A. Petty for the amount of said bond, the judgment directing that nothing be taken ágainst the surety J. E. Petty. From this final judgment J. A. Petty brings this appeal.

The facts developed upon the trial to determine whether the judgment should be made final are substantially the same as those found in cause No. 20109, Henry Darwin Caldwell et al. v. State, Tex.Cr. App., 126 S.W.2d 654, this day decided. The contention of appellants in the present case is the same as in the cause mentioned; viz: that the forfeiture was not taken in compliance with the directions of the statute.

The same reasons which lead to the af-firmance of the judgment in cause No. 20109 are operative here, and the judgment in the present case is affirmed.

On Appellants’ Motion for Rehearing.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

After carefully re-examining the record in the light of appellants’ motion for rehearing, we are constrained to adhere to the conclusion expressed in the original opinion.

The motion for. rehearing is overruled.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.