Case ID: la_120/html/0595-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MONROE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(45 South. 517.)
    No. 16,850.
    STATE v. DOUGLAS et al.
    (Jan. 20, 1908.)
    Appeax — Time op Taking — Inadvertent Extension.
    An appeal from a judgment setting aside a judgment forfeiting an appearance bond in a criminal case is returnable within 10 days from the date of the order of appeal; and an extension of time, granted by this court through inadvertence after the delay has expired, cannot avail the appellant.
    [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 15, Criminal Law, §§ 2691-2699.]
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    Appeal from Twenty-Fifth Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa; Clay Elliott, Judge.
    Action by the state against D. L. Douglas and Daniel Hardy Sanders. From a judgment annulling a previous judgment forfeiting an appearance bond, the state appeals.
    Dismissed.
    Walter Guión, Atty. Gen., and Robert Stephen Ellis, Dist. Atty. (Lewis Guión, of counsel), for the State. Reid, Purser & Reid, for appellee.
   MONROE, J.

The district court, at the instance of the surety, rendered judgment annulling a previous judgment forfeiting an appearance bond and condemning said surety, with his principal, for the amount 'thereof; and upon the same day (October 14, 1907) the district attorney obtained an order for an appeal, which was made returnable to this court within 10 days from that date. On October 25th the state, on motion to that effect, obtained an order from this court extending the time for the filing of the appeal to November 9th, and thereafter, on November 4th, the transcript was filed.

The delay for the return of the appeal expired on October 24th. Act No. 108, p. 155, of 1898; State v. Barranger, 106 La. 352, 31 South. 13; State v. Sonny Alexander, 46 La. Ann. 550, 15 South. 361; State v. O’Rourke, 49 La. Ann. 1570, 22 South. 818. The order for the extension of time, having been obtained after the delay for the filing of the transcript had expired and through inadvertence on the part of this court, cannot avail the appellant. Holz v. Fishel, 40 La. Ann. 297, 3 South. 888.

It is therefore ordered that this appeal be dismissed.