Case Name: STATE v. W. N. FREAUFF
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1926-02-09
Citations: 117 Or. 214
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE v. W. N. FREAUFF.
Judges: Burnett, Rand and Coshow, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 117
Pages: 214–218

Head Matter:
Argued February 2,
affirmed February 9, 1926.
STATE v. W. N. FREAUFF.
(243 Pac. 87.)
For appellant there was a brief over the names of Mr. H. F. Mclnturff and Mr. Paul C. Bormitser, with an oral argument by Mr. Mclnturff.
For respondent there was a brief over the names of Mr. Stanley Myers, District Attorney, and Mr. Clarence A. Beckman, Deputy District Attorney, with an oral argument by Mr. Beckman.

Opinion:
McBBIDE, C. J.
Section 2463, Or. L., regulating appeals in civil cases, provides that—
"Within thirty days next following the allowance of the appeal, the appellant must cause to be filed with the clerk of such circuit court a transcript of the cause."
Section 2509, Or. L., which governs appeals from justices' courts in criminal actions, provides that—
"The appeal is taken in the same manner and within the same time as in the case of an appeal from a judgment in a civil action."
Section 2511, Or. L., provides that—
"If the defendant is in custody at the time the appeal is allowed, the justice must make the proper transcript, and deliver it to the clerk of the circuit court. ' '
The contention here is that the defendant was in custody at the time the appeal was allowed, and, therefore, it was the duty of the judge of the District Court, who in this case has the same authority as the justice of the peace, to send the transcript up to the Circuit Court. We take it, that the transcript does not indicate that the defendant was in custody at the time the appeal was allowed. On the contrary, it appears that when brought into court he gave bail, pending the trial, in the sum of $250; and that upon the day judgment was rendered he gave bail in the sum of $500, after giving notice of appeal, and in its natural sequence the appeal was allowed. There is no record that he was ever committed to jail, or that any certified copy of the judgment was ever delivered to any sheriff or constable which would authorize them to place him in jail. The clear presumption from the record is that defendant never was in actual physical custody from the time he gave bail in the sum of $250, pending the trial, up to this moment. We do not think that the law contemplated a constructive custody but an actual physical custody, the intent of the statute being, if the defendant was at large physically, and capable of taking his own transcript and delivering it to the clerk, that it was his business to do so, but, if he was by reason of imprisonment physically unable so to do, the justice should see that it was sent up so that he should not lose any right by reason of lack of opportunity to perform the act of delivering the transcript on appeal to the clerk. This was the view intimated by this court in the early case of State of Oregon v. Zingsem, 7 Or. 137, wherein Mr. Justice Prim says:
" 'If defendant is in custody at the time the appeal is allowed the justice must make the proper transcript and deliver it to the clerk of the circuit court by the first day of the next term thereof,' or transmit it by mail or other safe conveyance by such time. If the defendant should not be in custody, we apprehend it would devolve upon him to file the transcript with the clerk himself, as in civil cases."
There is nothing to indicate that the defendant was in custody. There is no record that he was ever sent to jail, but, upon tbe contrary, it must be deduced from the entries in tbe justice's docket that, at tbe time of tbe allowance of tbe appeal, be was at large. Section 2497, Or. L., provides as follows:
"Tbe judgment must be executed by tbe sheriff of tbe county, or by a constable of tbe precinct in which tbe conviction is bad, or any marshal or policeman authorized to act as a constable therein, upon receiving a certified copy of the entry of judgment."
Tbe defendant was not in any such custody as tbe law contemplates, and it was bis duty within thirty days to have seen that a copy of the transcript in tbe case was filed with tbe clerk of tbe Circuit Court.
The . order of tbe Circuit Court dismissing tbe appeal is affirmed. Affirmed.
Burnett, Rand and Coshow, JJ., concur.