Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1883-03-24

no error apparent OF which appellant
can complain. The charge Is very full
fair and Impartial. clearly presenting
the law of the case. The Indictment
Is good and sufficient, and falling u
find nm error the judgment Is af
firmcd.
Simon Hart ct ais. w. the State oi
Texas. Writ of errors from Bowie
county. This Is writ Of errors sued
ont by appellants TO revise the action
Of the district court Of Bowie county,
in rendering final judgment on a
forfeited bail bond. A motion Is made
by the assistant encouragement 10
dismiss the writ of errors upon two
grounds, because, to wit: "a. This
cause Is u civil suit aud the Court Of
Appeals has no appellate jurisdiction
in civil cases tried in the District
| Court g If this case Is n criminal
case then the Court Of Appeals has no
! Jurisdiction 10 revise acriminal case
! by writ of errors, but only by appeals.
After the organization of the Court II
| Appeals under our present state conf
! stitution, the question as TO wbetheA
scire ficias cases on forfeited bail bonds
and recognizances were and should be
treated MS civil or criminal causes,
come up for adjudication both
in the Supreme court and
court of appeals and was
most ably and deliberately argued in
both courts, the questions being the
ones substantially as here presented.
In determining these questions no
written opinion was delivered in
either court, but majority Of the
judges In each court were Of opinion
that all such cases were criminal. and
that the Jurisdiction on appeal attach
ed 10 and properly belonged exclusive
ly 10 the court Of appeals. Since that
time the practice to so regard them
was uniform (Aber vs.. Warden, 10
leX,, 377), up TO the time of the adop-
ton Of the Revised Statutes. II i evil
dent That the commissioners 10 revise
and c0dify the laws were Of opinion
that these cases were and should abe
treated az civil and not as criminal
cases, and that they have made them
SO In so far rs they could by tie prac-
ticc and procedure provided fDq such
cases. C.. G. r., arts, "A, ii9, 45H
SBl, SO2 S93, Rev, stats, arts, 100, 1903.
Still, Notwithstanding This manifest
intention 70 characterize and treat
them as civil cases, this court since the
revision has declined 10 change
the ruling originally held by
the supreme aud by this court, and
has Invariably held them to be in
character criminal cases, subject, how
ever, in practice and procedure to the
same rules that govern civil cases.
Estate w. NorvcIl, So TcXas, 427; state
VI. Ward, 8 CT, App, 462. If the
question was an original one, ii might
be that we would take n different view
from the conclusions arrived at when
the question was first before the courts.
AS It Is the practice IL now SO well set
tied in this state that we do not believe
it to he the part Of wisdom or sound
policy to interfere with or change il.
such cases will still be considered
criminal In character, but in all pro-
cecdings after judgment nisi and issu-
ance of scirie facias liable unless
where otherwise expressly pro-
vided by statute to be gov
erned in practice by the same rul,4 rs
obtain in civil cases. The second
ground of the motion Is that a writ of
error does not lie in such eases because
they are criminal In addition to tue
reasons already given above for not in
ter!ering with the practice now 80
long and so well settled, we might 20
further II necessary and say that there
Is nothing IN the constitution of the
state inhibting the legislature fsom
providing such Il mode of bringlngup
for revision eases of this character.
even though they are held to he crinh-
nal. writ of error as recognized un-
der our laws is only another mode OF
bringing up the cause for revision as
upon appeal (Luckett vs. Thonpsend,
u y. a. 4
| Tex. REPORTS. NO. and this is the
been held that the state Is not
entitled 20 n writ of error in
such cases, though such mode Is pro-
vided In her behalf also by the statute
&, g., art, S9l-S92. A writ of error IL
only another mode of appeal, and the
state rs expressly prohibited the right
ef~ppeal in criminal eases. EConstl-
tuIion, art. 3, see. 70. We are of opin-
ION that tNis court has jurisdiction to
near and determine the cases as here
brought up by writ of error and the
motion To dismiss Is, therefore, over
ruled, Iookingto the record as TO the
| linal disposition of the case we find
mat the Judgment nisi is not in
conformity with the requirements OF
me law, =, &. r., art AL. "fo be
valid, ajudgment nisi must state that
the same vii be made final unless good
cause be shown nj the next term of
court why the defendant did not APP
pearl COLLINS vs.. State, IL Tex. Ct.
App, S56. This is not stated in the
Judgment nisi. Other questions
are raised, but they are not likely to
come up upon another trial, and are
lot, therefore, discussed. Because
there was no valid Judgment nisi
taken the Judgment final is reversed
ami the cause remanded for new
trial, Reversed aud remanded. John
II w hII L NJ - i