Case ID: sw_177/html/0132-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PRENDERGAST, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STALLINGS et al. v. STATE.
    (No. 3564.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 26, 1915.)
    1. Bail <§=593 — Eobeeituke—Judgment.
    Under the express provisions of Code Or. Proc. 1911, arts. 489-501, judgment is properly rendered on a forfeited bail bond against the principal, and also against each surety for the full amount.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. §§ 409, 410, 413-417; Dec. Dig. <@=93.]
    2. Bail <S^57 — 'Validity os Bond.
    A bail bond entitled “State of Texas, County of PI.,” stating that the principal was charged “with the offense of a felony,” and required to give bail to appear at the “district court of said county,” and conditioned on his appearing “before the said district court at its next'term, to be begun and holden at the courthouse of said county, in the town of C.,” was not invalid as failing to require that the principal make his personal appearance before the district court of IP. county, as required by statute, or as failing to state that he was charged with a felony.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. §§ 232-236; Dec. Dig. <§=557.]
    Appeal from District Court, Hemphill County; E. P. Greever, Judge.
    Proceedings by the State against E. L. Stallings and others. Erom a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
    Affirmed.
    Hoover & Dial and J. W. Sanders, all of Canadian, for appellants. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PRENDERGAST, P. J.

This is a scire facias case. E. L. Stallings had an examining trial before a justice of the peace of Hemphill county on a complaint charging him with swindling — a felony. Upon the hearing the justice of the peace required him to give bond as required by law in the sum of $1,-000 to appear before the next term of the District Court of that county. Thereupon he, with Geo. Gerlach and C. L. Tennison as sureties, entered into the proper bail bond, which we here copy :

“State of Texas, County of Hemphill.
“Know all men by these presents that we, F. L. Stallings as principal and. George Gerlach and C. L. Tennison as sureties, are held and firmly bound unto the state of Texas in the penal sum of one thousand ($1,000.00) dollars, for the payment of which sum, well and truly to be made, we do bind ourselves and each of us, our heirs, executors and administrators, jointly and severally, by these presents, signed and dated this the 7th day of March, A. D. 1914.
“The condition of the above obligation is such that, whereas the above-named E. L. Stallings stands charged by complaint with the offense of a felony, and upon a hearing of said complaint before C. B. Haynie, a justice of the peace of said county, sitting as an examining court, the said F. L. Stallings was, on the 7th day of March, 1914,_ by an order of said court required to give bail in the sum of one thousand dollars for his personal appearance before the district court of said county at the next term thereof, to answer the state of Texas upon the said charge above named, or, in default of such bail, to be committed to the jail of said county: Now, if the said E. L. Stallings shall well and truly make his personal appearance before the said district court at its next term, to be begun and holden at the courthouse of said county in the town of Canadian, on the 10th day of August, A. D. 1914, the same being the second Monday in said month, and there remain from day to day and term to term of said court until discharged by due course of law, then and there to answer said accusation against him, then this obligation shall become void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect.
“F. L. Stallings.
“George Gerlach.
“C. L. Tennison.
“Approved this the 7th day of March, 1914.
“C. H. Tipps, Sheriff Hemphill County, Tex.”

Stallings failed to appear as the bond bound him, and a proper forfeiture was had thereon, and judgment nisi properly entered. Proper and regular citation was duly issued thereon, which was duly served on said Ger-lach and Tennison, and at the proper time a regular judgment final was entered thereon. The statute in every particular was strictly complied with.

Appellants contend that the judgment is erroneous because it was against the principal for the full amount, and against each of the sureties for the full amount. The statute requires this, and the decisions so hold. C. C. P. arts. 489-501; Kiser v. State, 13 Tex. App. 201; Thompson v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 135, 29 S. W. 789; Avant v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 312, 26 S. W. 411.

He claims the bond was invalid, and judgment could not be rendered thereon on these grounds:

1. It did not require the principal to make his personal appearance before the district court of Hemphill county, as required by statute. The reverse of his contention is true, as is shown by a reading of the bond copied above.

(2) Because the statute requires that if the principal is ■ charged with a felony the bond shall so state. The statute so requires, and this bond strictly complies therewith, as a reading of it shows.

(3) He claims the bond failed to state before the district court of what county the principal was to appear. The reverse of this is true, as shown by the bond.

We have carefully read appellants’ brief and noted the authorities cited. The authorities they cite are inapplicable. We regard appellants’ contentions as hypercritical. The heading of the bond, in these words, “State of Texas, County of Hemphill,” is unquestionably a part of it, and when, the bond recites that the justice of the peace required him to give bail for his personal appearance before the district court of said county at the next term thereof, it could refer to no other county than Hemphill, and unquestionably did refer to that county, and that alone.

Likewise his contention that, jvhen the bond states that the principal is charged by complaint with the offense of a felony, it does not mean that the offense with which he was charged was a felony, is more than hypercritical.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      <@r=For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes