Court Opinion

ID: 9850979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:05:18.420361+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:46.368021
License: Public Domain

Spencer, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion for the reason that the case is decided on an issue which was not raised in the district court for what I think is an obvious reason. I refer to the fact that the majority opinion is predicated on the fact that an appearance bond in the case purports to have no surety.
I call attention to the following provision of section 29-611, R. R. S. 1943, covering appeals in minor criminal offenses: “Provided, that the party appealing may in lieu of such undertaking deposit with the clerk of such *857court a cash bond in a sum to be fixed by the magistrate but not less than one hundred dollars; and such cash bond shall be accepted in the came, upon the same conditions and with like effect as undertakings hereinbefore set out, such cash bond to be returned upon the fulfillment of the conditions of the bond. The magistrate from whose judgment the appeal is taken shall forthwith make return of the proceedings had before him, and shall certify the complaint and the warrant together with all such recognizances to the district court, * * (Italics supplied.)
It is true, the record does not specifically state that a cash bond was filed herein, and if one was filed the appellant’s attorney should have had the record reflect that fact. Appellant’s brief, which of course is not a part of the record, does state: “A Motion To Quash and Plea In Abatement were filed in the Justice Court on March 5, 1965, overruled and thereafter, on the same date, a plea of not guilty was entered; trial was held, the Defendant, Appellant, offered no evidence, was found guilty and gave immediate oral and written notice of appeal and simultaneously posted a $200.00 cash bond for his appearance in the District Court of Box Butte County, Nebraska. This Bond was taken, acknowledged, subscribed and approved by the Honorable N. T. John-stone, Justice of Peace, Lake Precinct, Box Butte County, Nebraska.”
The motion filed in the district court by the county attorney to dismiss the appeal for the insufficiency of the bond gave as the only reason therefor that the bond was conditioned “that the defendant shall personally appear before the District Court, Box Butte County, Nebraska. on the 27th day of September, 1965” rather than forthwith as required by law, and urges that this is jurisdictional and the bond is therefore void. No mention of any nature is made in his motion that no surety was furnished.
From the record it is apparent that the decision of the *858trial court was predicated on the point raised in the motion. On this point, it would be my opinion that under our cases there is a substantial compliance with the statute.
The justice of the peace approved the bond in its present form and the county attorney did not raise any question relative to the fact that no surety was furnished. It is apparent that they acted as they did because they were aware that a cash bond had been furnished as suggested in the appellant’s brief. While I admit that the burden was on the appellant to see that the notation that a cash bond had been filed was included in the transcript of the justice, it does not appear to me that we should decide the case on that point when there must have been some reason why so obvious a point would not have been raised in the lower court.
I call attention also to the fact that the majority opinion will result in a different rule for appeal bonds in criminal and in civil cases,. See Jacobitz v. Bussinger, ante p. 524, 138 N. W. 2d 839.
I am authorized to say that Boslaugh, J., joins in this dissent.