Case Name: The State of Louisiana vs. P. H. Doyle
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1890-05
Citations: 42 La. 640
Docket Number: No. 10,604
Parties: The State of Louisiana vs. P. H. Doyle.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 42
Pages: 640–643

Head Matter:
No. 10,604.
The State of Louisiana vs. P. H. Doyle.
1. Where the object of a proceeding is to have execution issue on a judgment of forfeiture of a bond in a criminal case, it is a criminal and not a civil proceeding, and the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is to be tested by the character of the crime charged in the indictment.
2. Where the minutes of the court contain no record of the forfeiture of an appearance bond in a criminal case, the record can not be supplied by parol testimony.
3. To amend the record long after it has been made up by parol testimony, particularly when the amendment is for the purpose of establishing a judgment, would be a dangerous proceeding.
In a suit, in the nature of a scire facias, to revive a judgment of the forfeiture of an appearance, and to cause execution to issue thereon, it isnot necessary to advertise the loss of the bond before giving evidence of its description, as the suit is not founded on the bond, but the judgment of forfeiture.
APPEAL from the Second District Court, Parish of Webster. Drew, J.
Walter H. Rogers, Attorney General, and J. A. W. Lowry, District-Attorney, for the State, Appellant:
1. “ The forfeiture of an appearance bond is a criminal proceeding, and the appeal from the judgment of forfeiture is not to be tested by the rule applicable to civil actions.” 37 An. 200; 38 An. 263,542; 41 An., State vs. Oornig.
2. “The sureties on a bond, which was given for and’procured the release of a prisoner charged with a criminal offence, can not gainsay its regularity, or the regularity of the proceedings in which it was obtained.” 30 An. 628.
3. “'When the defendant was in custody at the time a bond for his release was given, neither he nor his security can be heard to gainsay the regularity of the proceedings.” 16 An. 141.
Watkins & Watkins for Defendant and Appellee;
1. The forfeiture of an appearance bond is a criminal procedure only when proceedings are conducted under Sec. of 11. S. 1032, contradictorily with the accused.
2. And if the State abandons this mode and elects to sue the surety in a direct action without making the accused a party, the suit is a civil one for a sum of money and the Supreme Court is without appellate jurisdiction unless the amount sued for is over $2000.
3. An appearance bond taken by the sheriff without an order of court fixing the amount of the bond is null. 6 An. 700, 744; 10 An. 532; 13 An. 288; 37 An. 200, 202; 38 An. 542, 545, and cases cited. 12 An. 349.
4. Judicial records can not be impeached, contradicted or explained by parol evidence. 32 An. 974, citing 3 An. 631, 33 An. 351, 39 An. 142.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
McEneiíy, J.
Two indictments for larceny were presented against one John Richardson. The court granted an order fixing the amount of the bond in each case at $250. Richardson being unable to give this bond, on motion in open court, which does not appear upon the minutes, the bonds were reduced to $150 each, which Richardson, who was in custody, furnished, with Doyle as his surety.
The bonds were lost or- stolen from the clerk's office. On the theory that the recognizance of the accused had been forfeited, in pursuance of Sec. 1032 R. S., the District Attorney in the nature of a scire facias, proceeded against the surety on the bonds.
There was a judgment of non-suit against the State, from which this appeal is taken.
A motion is made to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the forfeiture of an appearance bond is a criminal procedure only where proceedings are conducted under Sec. 1032, R. S.
The object and purpose of the proceedings is to have an execution issue on a judgment of forfeiture. At most the proceeding is only in the nature of an original action. It springs directly from a criminal proceeding and is not to be tested by the rules applicable to civil actions. 37 An. 200; 38 An. 263, 542; State vs. Cornig, 41 An. (not yet reported).
The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.