Case Name: STATE v. YOUNG
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1918-01-03
Citations: 142 La. 865
Docket Number: No. 22879
Parties: STATE v. YOUNG.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 142
Pages: 865–871

Head Matter:
(77 South. 772)
No. 22879.
STATE v. YOUNG.
(Jan. 3, 1918.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 7, 1918.)
(Syllabus by the Court.) •
1. Bail <§=79 (2) — Judgment—Setting Aside —Forfeiture oe Appearance Bond — Appeal by State.
The state of Louisiana, through its proper officer, may appeal from a final judgment setting aside the forfeiture of an appearance bond, where such bond was furnished in an appealable criminal case.
On the Merits.
2. Bail <@=79(1) — Appearance Bond — Forfeiture.
Where an appearance bond is forfeited because of the nonappearance of an accused at the time when and the place where he had bound himself to appear, the 5-day limit, within which he might, under Act 17 of- 1900, have appeared and set aside such forfeiture, is binding upon him; and an appearance some 20 days after such forfeiture, though resulting entirely from want of proper information or misunderstandings on his part, does not entitle him to have the forfeiture set aside.
3. Bail <§=79 (1) — Constitutional Law <§=262 — Due "Process of Law —Forfeiture of Appearance Bond.
Act 17 of 1900, providing for the manner of forfeiting appearance bonds and setting forth the conditions under which such forfeiture may be set aside, is not obnoxious to the “due process of law” clause of the Constitution.
Appeal from Twenty-Third Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Mary; William C. Baker, Judge.
Rule by Murphy Young to set aside and cancel a forfeiture of an appearance bond, given by him, with sureties. From a judgment setting aside the forfeiture of the bond, the State appeals.
Motion to dismiss denied, and judgment annulled and set aside, and demand denied.
A. V. Coco, Atty. Gen., and Percy Saint, Dist. Atty., of Franklin (Vernon A. Coco, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State. James R. Parkerson, of New Orleans, for appellee.

Opinion:
LECPIE, J.
The state has taken the present appeal from a judgment setting aside the forfeiture of an appearance bond, and the accused moves to dismiss, on the authority of State v. Cole, 39 La. Ann. 938, 3 South. 84. In that ease, such a judgment was assimilated to an order granting a new trial, which is only interlocutory and not appealable, and for that reason the appeal was dismissed. It does not appear from the statement in the opinion whether the judgment of forfeiture, though rendered, had been written and signed, nor whether the decree setting aside the forfeiture had been written and signed, and we infer from the reasons stated therein that neither had been done. Those were the circumstances under which a similar appeal was dismissed in the case of State v. Robert Holland et al., 47 La. Ann. 362, 16 South. 958. In each of these eases, it will be seen, the appeal by the state was dismissed not for the reason that the state had no right to appeal, but because the judgments therein were preliminary or interlocutory and not final, while in the case at bar the judgment appealed from was written, read, and signed, and was final.
The case of State v. Martin, 50 La. Ann. 1157, 24 South. 590, is decisive of the question involved here. It was held in that case:
"If persons charged with crime and their sureties on appearance bonds may appeal from final judgments forfeiting such bonds, or from final judgments refusing to set aside the forfeitures when made, surely the state may likewise appeal from adverse final judgments denying forfeiture, or setting aside forfeitures once made, or declaring judgments of forfeiture satisfied. The reasons for the one apneal are as strong and cogent as those for the other."
See, also, State v. Johnson, 132 La. 11, 60 South. 702, where, although the question was not raised, a similar appeal was entertained by this court.
The motion to dismiss is overruled.